User talk:TJ Spyke/Archive 30

Re: The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess
There are still outstanding issues at the recent PR.  Gary King ( talk ) 23:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * All of them except for one or two.  Gary King ( talk ) 01:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think you looked at the PR then. Starting from the Gameplay section down, none of the dozen or so points have been addressed. I worked a bit on the Infobox and Lead sections, so those are done. Also, if you want to get points for the WikiCup, an FAC won't help you as they normally take a month before they are passed.  Gary King ( talk ) 05:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

TNA Ustream
are you saying I can't post a ustream link because thats TNA Official ustream channel what they do is they make Pre and Post Shows the site tnawrestlinglive.com is just a short link to get to the TNA ustream the ustream embed is on TNA official site with the chat  Kreyg Talk 12:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's official, I think it is allowed, provided it can be proved to be TNA's and not just someone else illegally steaming it (like Justin.tv).  TJ   Spyke   20:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No, what?
Don't get your response there. The main event(s) are split the same for Wrestlemania IX on the pay per view's prime page. One or the other should prolly be changed to match what was decided to do as they're ostensibly the same thing. So Mania IX would need an advertised / actual text addition as well, correct? Papacha (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Re
AFD it?-- Unquestionable Truth -- 21:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure I mean all I'm saying is that you might aswell give other people a thought in the matter because it seems other WP:PW members have added to the page as well. An AFD would be good so that it doesn't look like you're the only one making the call.-- Unquestionable Truth -- 21:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk it out friend
I want no wars.-- T  ru  c  o  503 23:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Killings
Why, exactly? I understand the week-by-week rule, but it's been months since Bragging Rights and not only is this the second PPV that he's going to be at, but he's also in one of the PPV's main event matches. PCE (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So come after the Elimination Chamber, his qualifying match and involvement in the PPV's main event will be included? PCE (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, cool. PCE (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"Editing tests"? really?
Wow, you're patronising. How exactly is removing unnecessary and pointless spaces which have been shoved in the middle of references "editing tests"? Please explain, because I don't understand that. And more to the point, why did you re-insert them? That seems like editing tests, not my edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.209.60 (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You must be reading the thing arseways. I removed white space in the middle of references. To take just 2 examples, I changed " " (with white space) to " " (without white space) and "|date= 2008-09-18" (with white space) to "|date=2008-09-18" (without white space). And furthermore, I don't use IE, I use firefox, so that theory of yours is bollocks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.209.60 (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you retarded or do you just not like being proved wrong? Again, I changed "|date= 2008-09-18" (with white space) to "|date=2008-09-18" (without white space). Please explain how that constitutes adding white space. Because, newsflash, it doesn't, it removes it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.209.60 (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

And how about me changing "|date=2009-12-10| accessdate=2009-12-14" to "|date=2009-12-10| accessdate=2009-12-14" in the professional wrestling career section, or me changing "irishwhipwrestling.com/images/results/result080804.html| title=Peaders Beer" to "irishwhipwrestling.com/images/results/result080804.html|title=Peaders Beer" in the Irish Whip Wrestling section (first paragraph). Were they all me adding whitre spaces too? A clue: no, no they weren't, and you're reading the diff things backwards.

Try answering my question instead of just warning me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.209.60 (talk • contribs)
 * Apparently you aren't actually looking at the article because you are adding white spaces. Also, learn how to sign your comments (it's not that hard).  TJ   Spyke   19:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Well you just proved you're retarded quite frankly. A) I'm not adding white space, you are, you're just ignoring my examples of me pointing this out. B) I'm not British, I'm Irish, and you're a fucktard if you don't reailse there's a difference. and C) "I know not how Brits all rude like you" doesn't make any sense whatsoever. This is why wikipedia is fucked. It's editors can't even use proper grammar in conversations. Clap, clap, clap.
 * I forgot that Dublin is in Ireland (I momentarily thought it was in Northern Ireland) and the "all" was a type, I meant to type "are". The rest of my comments are correct though.  TJ   Spyke   19:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Afraid not, TJ. Your edits and reversions are adding whitespace back into references.  Take  for example.  I've just looked at this in Opera, Safari and Firefox.  I think you may need to apologise to Mr IP Address. Tim (Xevious) (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The Magic Box: US Platinum Games Chart?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best_selling_games

I notice this page references The Magic Box and I was wondering how reliable the source was? Why did we chose to go with that source? Can we use this source in other articles? They do not list their source for this chart (that I see.) Thank you for your time.--108.2.2.183 (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not 100% sure for the US numbers, but their Japanese numbers are from Famitsu. Try contacting one of the other regular editors of that article like ReyBrujo. There is no reason they can't be used in other articles too.  TJ   Spyke   19:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:TNA Wrestling.JPG
 Thanks for uploading File:TNA Wrestling.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

How do you upload TNA images
Today a Barnstar user decided to mess up all my images and got them reported to a wikipedia Admin im asking you how in the world do you upload a TNA arena image without getting it taken down however I noticed they haven't taken down not 1 WWE Image

 Kreyg Talk 04:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

A recent edit
Hello. When you made this edit was there a visible change in the article? The reason I ask is because typically AWB isn't used for edits that this appears to fall under. Mainly the fourth bullet point in that link.--Rockfang (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My bad, I accidentally hit Save instead of Skip.  TJ   Spyke   00:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for a page to be made
I'm not very experienced with Wikipedia, could you make the wikipedia page for Ring of Honor's next PPV, Big Bang? Here is a link confirming it as the next iPPV. http://www.rohwrestling.com/news/Article.aspx?id=3191 70.189.221.185 (talk) 07:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Some advice
You should stop taking everything so personally. It seems every time I question one of your edits, you immediately fire back and are usually rather nasty. It's just a website, calm down. Regardless of how you feel about the notability of the promotion, he did still found it, so why shouldn't it be noted? And you really can't compare it to holding a championship. -- Scorpion 0422  23:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It wasn't even really a serious promotion. They used a fake title (claiming another organizations title, it would be like TNA saying they had the WWE Championship) and barely did any shows. It would be like noting that Terry Funk started a promotion called !Bang! or that Dusty Rhodes started one called Turnbuckle Championship Wrestling. IGF was a short-lived and non-notable promotion, not the least bit worth mentioning (and I find it off you keep wanting it in considering you complain when someone adds a major title like the IC or US titles to a wrestlers entry).  TJ   Spyke   01:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a relatively minor detail, so I really don't feel like edit warring with you. It's interesting to see that you have finally learned how to avoid a 3RR block (although it took you long enough). -- Scorpion 0422  02:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

ECW Championship
Hello again, i need your help. The ECW Championship is listed as deactivated. This is wrong, as i have a source from wwe themselves saying that the title is retired. can we correct this on the list of reigns? thanks! here is the source: http://www.wwe.com/shows/ecw/results/13527692/. it mentions that the title is retired in the last paragraph of the christian vs ezeikiel jackson match results. --JereMerr 05:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)--JereMerr 05:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)--JereMerr 05:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremerr (talk • contribs)

Sorting
Thanks Thank you for your note, but you are mistaken. sorts before. I suggest that you review WP:SORTKEY. Please post on my talk if you would like to respond. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Correctly? "WWE Xtreme Home Video" should not come before "Way Back in Time Video". That is confusing and nonsensical. It only sorts that way due to a restriction in MediaWiki software. Again, see WP:SORTKEY, which reads in part "For example, use "Dubois" in sort keys rather than "DuBois"." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Again I have sorted according to WP:SORTKEY. If you continue undoing these, I'll have to post to some administrators' noticeboard, not because you are being intentionally disruptive (I have no doubt about your good faith in this matter), but because you are unintentionally breaking the purpose of sortkeys. Please post on my talk if something is still not clear. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Contribs There are only 24 hours in a day. If you look through my contribs, you can see thousands of sorts for articles that start with two capital letters. That's what I've arbitrarily chosen to start with. If you want to sort other articles, that's great. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Bigger targets? If you're calling me inconsistent, that's one thing, but if you're claiming that I'm specifically singling out wrestling-related articles for some special treatment that's another. If I could snap my fingers and make all three million articles on the English Wikipedia sorted correctly, I would. Barring that, I've got to do what I can as I have the time and interest. I've arbitrarily chosen to do some sets of articles (recently, articles with consecutive capital letters and Category:R.E.M. songs), and I may choose to do NFL-related articles (and categories) at some point. In the meantime, there are still literally a million things to do. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

RE
Well TJ considering the championship was known as the ECW World Heavyweight Championship from '94 to '01 = 7 years while on the other hand it was known as the ECW Championship from '07 to '10 = 3 years, per WP:COMMONNAME the page name should be the ECW World Heavyweight Championship. Its the same reason the WCW Championship article is under the name WCW World Heavyweight Championship and not World Championship. You wanna take it to WT:PW ? -- Unquestionable Truth -- 19:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, despite our disagreements over the years, I've treated you with the same respect I expect from others. That said, next time "Know your Role.... and Shut your Mouth!"
 * I apologize for that remark, I was just annoyed at what that other user was doing. Yes the title had the longer name for longer period, but I think it's arguable when the title was more notable. You can't deny that the title was seen by far more people even in 2 years in WWE than it ever was in ECW. The title was seen by millions of people every week in WWE and every month on PPV. As I mentioned about WCW, that one had the shortened name for only 6 months.  TJ   Spyke   20:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:WWEPPV
I'm having trouble trying to figure out how to handle the numerious name changes with Template:WWEPPV, and where to put events in current and former. Any suggestions? --  Θaks  ter   21:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was talking about the template. I'm pretty much unsure where to place the limbo events on it (namely Backlash, Judgment Day, The Bash and Breaking Point). As you've said, with November free, any of them could still potentially replace Survivor Series. --  Θaks  ter   21:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. I've moved the old events at the very end. I'm not satisfied with it, but I guess it will do. Thanks. --  Θaks  ter   21:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry!
I'm really sorry, ok? I thought WWE NXT was a reality show/live event program. It does have WWE employees in it as pros, but I didn't know it was a WWE Tough Enough clone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yugiohmike2001 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Warning: Potentially violating the three-revert rule.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. - Zhang He (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For what article? If you mean WWE NXT, I have been reverting a IP's vandalism.  TJ   Spyke   16:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

WWE Online
Hello Oakster, I have a question, is it true that the PC game WWE Online was again renamed WWE Smackdown vs. Online Raw?

Thank you. --189.217.102.117 (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, i'm not Oakster. I will put this on his page.  TJ   Spyke   23:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 12:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Final warning regarding WP:NOTBROKEN
Please stop. Despite countless urgings to stop going back to 2007; an ANI thread; and two subsequent reminders that harmless redirects should not by bypassed without good reason, you continue to make disruptive edits contrary to the Redirect guideline (specifically the section entitled Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken). Moreoever, you continue to use a misleading edit summary when doing so. The next time you bypass a redirect that is not broken, you will be blocked from editing. –xenotalk 16:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Spoiler
The Women's title change was a spoiler.--74.235.5.144 (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 February newsletter
Round one is over, and round two has begun! Congratulations to the 64 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our first round. A special well done goes to, our round one winner (1010 points), and to and , who were second and third respectively (640 points/605 points). Sasata was awarded the most points for both good articles (300 points) and featured articles (600 points), and TonyTheTiger was awarded the most for featured topics (225 points), while Hunter Kahn claimed the most for good topics (70). claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points), claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points),  claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and  claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture.

Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping at WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

ROH Big Bang
I'm not very experienced with Wikipedia, could you make the wikipedia page for Ring of Honor's next PPV, Big Bang? Here is a link confirming it as the next iPPV. http://www.rohwrestling.com/news/Article.aspx?id=3191 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.130.120 (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010
The site is credible and reliable, you're obviously having a problem with that for whatever reason, but you seem to be the only one with a problem. What makes you the decider of whether or not a site/source is reliable? Who died and made you king? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.45.10 (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking a question, I'm simply stating that the site is reliable and credible and it is an investor call, if you don't know what that is, I suggest you look it up. The number came straight from Sony themselves, if they don't know the amount of consoles they have shipped, then I don't know who does. Do NOT insert the tag again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.45.10 (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to let an administrator take care of this and decide. You are obviously wrong and vandalizing the article with your own bias and preconceived notions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.45.10 (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you to show me that the site is unreliable like you claim. I have reported you for vandalism as your bias is obviously getting in the way of objectivity. I'll leave the page as is for now until an admin takes a look at it. 68.204.45.10 (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not my site, but the site is credible and reliable, you probably know this but refuse to accept it due to your bias. I don't live on wikipedia and have a life outside of it unlike you. You bolding a word or two will not make it more likely that you're right and I'm wrong. The burden of proof is on you, and you also thought I was vandalizing, so you obviously need to take a look at your history before acting all self-righteous. You obviously have a problem and accused me of vandalism when I provided proof. You don't get to decide whether or not a site is credible just because you want to or don't want to. The source and the material on the website is reliable and verifiable. As I told you in the edit summary, simple math should make you clearly see that the 60 million figure is correct. 55.9 million as of last quarter + 4.2 million as of quarter 3.68.204.45.10 (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied on IPs page.  TJ   Spyke   23:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

On the iPod touch and iPhone
It qualifies as a gaming handheld. Category:iPhone OS games

Also many gaming sites recognize the iPhone/iPod touch as gaming platform. Many of them have a section/sub-site dedicated to iPhone OS games. --Aizuku (talk) 07:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Wrestlemania
Please revert your edit and take the discussion to the talk page, where I have started it. If you do not participate, don't plan on your edit standing for long. –Turian  ( talk )  00:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Page blanking?
Why are you welcoming me to Paltalk? You are well over four years too late on that. Ha, ha, ha! There was no page blanking. Don't know what you are talking about. Yes, it was the same thing I just did. Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 00:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Events
Hi TJ! Just letting you know that a page you proposed for deletion in 2009, List of CZW events, has been restored after the proposed deletion was contested at requests for undeletion. You are welcome, if you feel it appropriate, to nominate the article to AfD. Cheers,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 13:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Help me, Please.
User:208.87.234.180 has been vandalising both WWE Raw and TNA Impact!. I don't know how to do blocking. Can you help me?--Yugiohmike2001 (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Jackson
Zeke has only been billed from Guyana on TV. His WWE profile states that he was born in Guyana, but bills him from Harlem, which is why I removed the bolded "Guyana, South America" from his billing section. PCE (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well then why hasn't someone found an online source to fully back it up? PCE (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll be on the lookout for sources as well. One report (may have been from PWTorch or another passable site) covering the Rumble stated that he was being billed from Guyana during his match against Christian. PCE (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

consensus
Apparently you do not understand what a consensus is. A consensus is an agreement. That means a group has agreed and a decision has been determined. No where at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 75 is an agreement made. Because there was a higher amount of people liking tag team names first, you have established that as a consensus. You are wrong. I'm all for discussing this again where we can actually have a consensus. If anything was established with the previous discussion, was editor's choice.-- Will C  01:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There was no agreement though. There was even a small discussion inside the section about there being no agreement. Read the section. There is no consensus, you have shown no agreement. It is all up to you sir. You are the only one claiming their is a consensus, and if there was one. You would not be alone.-- Will C  02:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A no there was no consensus. You can warn me all you want. Your track record is much wrose than mine. You being involved in a dispute hurts you. I've asked you several times, and still you have not shown where it says an agreement has been reached. The discussion died. I'm still waiting. If you can't show a consensus, then you have nothing to stand on.-- Will C  04:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * First off no consensus was established because only 4 were actually involved in the discussion. Everyone else said they like something, and WP:I Like It is not an argument for formats. Thus those opinions did not go toward the final decision. TJ quit trying to own shit like you've done for too long. You disrupt wikipedia more than anyone. It seems you are the only one who sees a consensus.-- Will C  22:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Because there never was a consensus. This project is so screwed up we need actual agreements, and not seeming agreements.-- Will C  20:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

RE
Last night the project was being attacked by a vandal who kept moving pages. My advice to you is don't worry about it.-- Unquestionable Truth -- 21:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Help me out here.
User Vjmlhds thinks the WWE title should be on both Raw and SD since Batista is holding because of a "business deal" with Mr.McMahon. Look on his talk page, I've been trying to tell him it's currently SD's title while it appears on Raw. Can you help me out here?--Yugiohmike2001 (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on World Wrestling Entertainment. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. –<span style="font-family: cursive, Serif; color:#000000;">Turian  ( talk )  19:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you not see the warning I placed on your page? Revert your change or I will report this whole incident to 3RR. I took it to the talk page, now follow me there. –<span style="font-family: cursive, Serif; color:#000000;">Turian  ( talk )  19:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not revert, so I did not violate 3RR. I came up with a compromise (something no one else seems willing to do). You want to state that it's a Raw title only (which is factually incorrect). WWE itself states that the title belongs to BOTH brands.  TJ   Spyke   20:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"Gentleman" Jerry Valiant
I found an article on PWInsider That, unfortunately, Jerry Valiant (John S. Hill) Passed away on thursday, March 11th. i am working on confirming it with other sources, but here is the link to the article http://pwinsider.com/article/45870/former-wwwf-tag-team-champion-john-gentleman-jerry-valiant-hill-passes-away.html?p=1. can we edit the article with this information?--JereMerr 05:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)--JereMerr 05:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)--JereMerr 05:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremerr (talk • contribs)

March 2010
So in other words, you think it's up to you to say whether or not a site is reliable and credible. Gotcha! Fun little world you live in. 68.204.45.10 (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Surprise surprise the old source is credible, in the future, try to put your bias aside in favor of objectivity. Thanks. 68.204.45.10 (talk) 02:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't the one trolling a credible and reliable source, you were. Had you used your damn brain you would've seen the source was mathematically correct also but a simple math problem turned out to be too difficult for you. Like I said, for future reference try to be more objective, that's the whole purpose of wikipedia, objectivity. Thanks. 68.204.45.10 (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I should have read the discussion page for List of best-selling video games about VG Chartz being an unreliable source and I apologize for the hasty entry. But, wow, your lack of tact is astounding. A simple "I fixed your error. Please check the discussion page before editing in the future." would have sufficed. Don't you dare insult my intelligence again. You can catch more flies with honey. Keep that in mind in the future. I appreciate the looking out. GoldThong (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours
I have blocked you for 72 hours as you have chosen to continue bypassing redirects even after being blocked for 24 hours for the same.

I remind you that WP:R2D is a generally-accepted community guideline. You do not have to agree with it, you can petition to change it, but you must follow it until it is changed.

You have requests and warnings going back to 2007 asking you to adhere to this guideline; that you have chosen to ignore them is unacceptable.

The blocks will increase in length should you continue to make edits contrary to the redirect guideline. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 21:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * - note also that in your exuberance to bypass this redirect contrary to the guideline, you left an error in wikicode. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 22:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This, too. Tim Song (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to say I find this extremely puzzling. Bypassing redirects is pointless, you've been blocked for it before, very recently in fact. It seems like it would be the easiest thing in the world to just not do it anymore, so why do you persist? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record I have no 'problem' with this editor - other than his persistent disregard for WP:R2D and his ignoring of the many comments over the years he's received about this practice. I have no issue with the block being lifted and will do so myself if the editor agrees to adhere to the guideline in the future. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 22:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't really want any part in this, but noticed the situation on my watchlist. Even if he agrees to adhere to it, give him a month and he'll start back up again. A few months ago, he agreed to quit changing links and names from "SmackDown" and "ECW" to "Friday Night SmackDown" and "ECW of Sci Fi", yet every once in a while I and a few others have caught him still persisting to change them spite the consensus established at three different pages on the subject by several editors. To be honest, for the past 3 years, he has been given enough room to breath. He knows the rules, and yet he still continues to break them. This is his 4 block in like 6 months. I believe it is clear, he isn't stopping anything. He goes by his own rules.-- Will C  03:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey
Hey TJ, how have you been?  Save   Us.  Y2J  12:00, January 20 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been pretty good. I'm just playing Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 at the moment.  Save   Us.  Y2J  12:24, January 20 2010 (UTC)


 * It is a great game. The game has got alot of controversy but it's still a good game. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is a good game aswell. I finished that on regular and I finished Modern Warfare 2 on hardened. Special Ops on Modern Warfare 2 is amazing.  Save   Us.  Y2J  12:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

ECW
I wasn't vandalisizing or test editing, i believe it should say "was" because its dead.. plus WWE made me vomit on what they did to ECW. the final nail in the coffin was when Vince McMahon decided to shit on Paul Heyman and make himself the ECW Champion. thats why i want it to say was... without me needing to make a critism section... which im tempted to do big time if there isn't one already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Pizza (talk • contribs) 01:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title
You are invited to join the discussion at. DrKiernan (talk) 09:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using )

MXW Pro Wrestling
Hi, I noticed that you contributed to the MXW page a few months ago. I recently rewrote the entire article in greater detail and redirected the original entry to MXW Pro Wrestling. This article was recently nominated for deletion and I'm curious what your opinion of the expanded page is. Any help or constructive criticism you may be able to offer would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Demanufactured (talk) 06:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 March newsletter
We're half way through round two, and everything is running smoothly. leads overall with 650 points this round, and heads pool B. currently leads pool C, dubbed the "Group of Death", which has a only a single contestant yet to score this round (the fewest of any group), as well five contestants over 100 points (the most). With a month still to go, as well as 16 wildcard places, everything is still to play for. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Although unrelated to the WikiCup, April sees a Good Article Nominations backlog elimination drive, formulated as a friendly competition with small awards, as the Cup is. Several WikiCup contestants and judges have already signed up, but regular reviewers and those who hope to do more reviewing are more than welcome to join at the drive page. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Chilly Willy.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Chilly Willy.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Concerning the situation with the logo for the Mutual Broadcasting System...
Um, excuse me.....since you seem to think you can sue over usage of the MBS logo, how about I contact Westwood One and see what they have to say about the matter? In fact, how about I alert Westwood One to your unauthorized usage of their trademark? I mean, if you want to talk about infringement & suing & such, I'm pretty sure Westwood One would be MORE than happy to clarify exactly who has that right. I mean, after all, you are using the MBS logo without their permission, so how in the hell do you think you have the right to sue over something YOU DON'T OWN? So, what I'm trying to say is, make a post on the MBS talk page rescinding your threat to sue & apologize to Wikipedia, or I'll report your site to Westwood One (& they can sue YOU for everything you're worth). So, sir, the ball's in your court. I hope you make the right decision. 67.173.117.222 (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Story Mode Federation
I was looking through the archives in the WP:PW deletion sorting and I came across Story Mode Federation. It is not an efed, but it is a CAW league. It has a following and has it's own article on the CAW Wikia. It is popular on YouTube with the CAW fans, but that is it. Now you know a little more on SMF. Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 04:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Super Mario Bros. Nippon.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:Super Mario Bros. Nippon.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 April newsletter
Round two is over, and we are down to our final 32. For anyone interested in the final standings (though not arranged by group) this page has been compiled. Congratulations to, our clear overall round winner, and to and , who were solidly second and third respectively. There were a good number of high scorers this round- competition was certainly tough! Round three begins tomorrow, but anything promoted after the end of round two is eligible for points. 16 contestants (eight pool leaders and eight wildcards) will progress to round four in two months- things are really starting to get competitive. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Judge iMatthew has retired from Wikipedia, and we wish him the best. The competition has been ticking over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. A special thank you goes to participants and  for their help in preparing for round three. Good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 17:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter message
It has recently been brought to the attention of WP:PW that the newsletter is being to delivered to several users who have not been actively editing for several months. As a result, their talk pages have become increasingly large, unmanageable and slow to load due to a lack of archiving. In response, this message is being sent to all editors listed in Category:WikiProject Professional wrestling participants to say that anyone who does not list their name at WikiProject Professional wrestling/Newsletter/Active before May 16 will be automatically listed at WikiProject Professional wrestling/Newsletter/Nospam, and will no longer receive the newsletter or any notification of it. If you are added to WikiProject Professional wrestling/Newsletter/Nospam, please feel free to remove your name if you desire. If you wish to continue receiving the newsletter as normal, please add your name to WikiProject Professional wrestling/Newsletter/Active. If you simply wish to receive notification of a new issue, but not have the full newsletter delivered to your talk page, please add your name to the notification only list. If you have any queries please contact me at my talk page or leave a message at WT:PW. Thank you for your co-operation. ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 00:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Super Mario Bros. Nippon.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:Super Mario Bros. Nippon.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Billy the Wizard.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Billy the Wizard.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 May newsletter
We are half way through round 3, with a little under a month to go. The current overall leader is, who has 570 points. He leads pool C. Pools A, B and D are led by, and  respectively. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Two of last year's final 8, and, have dropped out of the competition, saying they would rather their place went to someone who will have more time on their hands than them next round. On a related note, a special thank you goes to for his help behind the scenes once again. There is currently a problem with the poster, perhaps caused by the new skin- take a look at this discussion and see if you can help. The competition has continued to tick over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. Good luck to all! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 20:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 12:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:WW397.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:WW397.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Slamboree 00.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Slamboree 00.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This also applies to: They were 'orphaned' because we do not support video covers in a videography style article, per WP:NFC. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Slamboree 99.JPG
 * File:Slamboree 98.JPG
 * File:Slamboree 97.JPG
 * File:Slamboree 96.JPG
 * File:Slamboree 95.jpg
 * File:Slamboree 94.jpg

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Need Help
TJ I'm trying to make WrestleMania a Good Article and I thought you could help me. Would you please help me turn the article into a Good Article?--Nascarking (talk) 01:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Brunswick Pro Bowling.JPG
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Brunswick Pro Bowling.JPG. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Help Me Fix Armageddon 1999
I think Armageddon 1999 was vandalized since it reads it took place in Singapore. I would change it myself but have no clue where Armageddon 1999 was. Can you please go to the article and change it?--Nascarking (talk) 04:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 July newsletter
We are half-way through our penultimate round, and nothing is yet certain. Pool A, currently led by has ended up the more competitive, with three contestants (,  and ) scoring over 500 points already. Pool B is led by, who has also scored well over 500. The top two from each pool, as well as the next four highest scorers regardless of pool, will make it through to our final eight. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Planning has begun for the 2011 WikiCup, with open discussions concerning scoring and flags for next year's competition. Contributions to those discussions would be appreciated, especially concerning the flags, as next year's signups cannot begin until the flag issue has been resolved. Signups will hopefully open at some point in this round, with discussion about possible changing in the scoring/process opening some time afterwards.

Earlier this round, we said goodbye to, who has bowed out to spend more time on the book he is authoring with his wife. We wish him all the best. In other news, the start of this round also saw some WikiCup awards sent out by. We appreciate his enthusiasm, and contestants are of course welcome to award each other prizes as they see fit, but rest assured that we will be sending out "official" awards at the end of the competition. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 22:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 August newsletter
We have our final eight! The best of luck to those who remain. A bumper newsletter this week as we start our home straight.


 * Pool A's winner was . Awarded the top score overall this round, Sturmvogel_66 writes primarily on military history, favouring Naval warfare.
 * Pool B's winner was . Awarded the top score for featured articles this round, Casliber writes primarily on natural sciences, especially botany and ornithology.
 * Pool A's close second was . Awarded the top score for featured pictures this round, Sasata writes primarily on natural sciences, favouring mycology.
 * Pool B's close second was . Awarded the top score for good articles and topics this round, ThinkBlue primarily writes content related to television and film, including 30 Rock.
 * The first wildcard was . Awarded the top score for did you knows and valued pictures this round, TonyTheTiger writes on a number of topics, including baseball, American football and Chicago.
 * The second wildcard was . Someone who has helped the Cup behind the scenes all year, White Shadows said "I'm still in shock that I made it this far" and writes primarily on Naval warfare, especially U-boats.
 * The third wildcard was . Awarded the top score for featured lists and topics this round, Staxringold primarily writes on sport and television, including baseball and 30 Rock.
 * The fourth wildcard was . Entering the final eight only on the final day of the round, William S. Saturn writes on a number of topics, mostly related to Texas.

We say goodbye to the six who fell at the final hurdle. only just missed out on a place in the final eight. was not far behind. was awarded top points for in the news this round. contributed a variety of did you know articles. said "I'm surprised to have survived so far into the competition", but was extactic to see Finland in the semi-finals. did not score this round, but has scored highly in previous rounds. We also say goodbye to, who withdrew earlier this month after spending six weeks overseas. Anyone interested in this round's results can see them here and here. Thank you to for these.

Signups for next year's competition are now open. Planning is ongoing, with a key discussion about judges for next year open. Discussion about how next year's scoring will work is ongoing, and thoughts are more than welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. Also, TonyTheTiger is compiling some information and statistics on the finalists here- the final eight are encouraged to add themselves to the list.

Our final eight will play it out for two months, after which we will know 2010's WikiCup winner, and a variety of prizes will be awarded. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 23:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Happy Birthday
Armbrust <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  00:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Power Rangers Wild Force.JPG
 Thanks for uploading File:Power Rangers Wild Force.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk  04:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 September newsletter
We are half-way through our final round, entering the home straight. leads at the time of writing with 1180 points, immediately followed by with 1175 points. closely follows in third place with 1100 points. For those who are interested, data about the finalists has been compiled at WikiCup/History/2010/finalists, while a list of content submitted by all WikiCup contestants prior to this round has been compiled at WikiCup/History/2010/Submissions. As ever, anything contestants worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Despite controversy, the WikiCup remains open. Signups for next year's competition are more than welcome, and suggestions for how next year's competition will work are appreciated at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. More general comments and discussions should be directed at the WikiCup talk page. One month remains in the 2010 WikiCup, after which we will know our champion. Good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 23:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 October newsletter
The 2010 WikiCup is over! It has been a long journey, but what has been achieved is impressive: combined, participants have produced over seventy featured articles, over five hundred good articles, over fifty featured lists, over one thousand one hundred "did you know" entries, in addition to various other pieces of recognised content. A full list (which has yet to be updated to reflect the scores in the final round) can be found here. Perhaps more importantly, we have our winner! The 2010 WikiCup champion is, with an unbelievable 4220 points in the final round. Second place goes to, with 2260, and third to , with 560. Congratulations to our other four finalists –, , and. Also, congratulations to, who withdrew from the competition with an impressive 2685 points earlier in this round.

Prizes will also be going to those who claimed the most points for different types of content in a single round. It was decided that the prizes would be awarded for those with the highest in a round, rather than overall, so that the finalists did not have an unfair advantage. Winning the featured article prize is, for five featured articles in round 4. Winning the good article prize is, for eighty-one good articles in round 5. Winning the featured list prize is, for six featured lists in round 1. Winning the picture and sound award is, for four featured pictures in round 3. Winning the topic award is, for forty-seven articles in various good topics in round 5. Winning the "did you know" award is, for over one hundred did you knows is round 5. Finally, winning the in the news award is, for nineteen articles in the news in round three.

The WikiCup has faced criticism in the last month – hopefully, we will take something positive from it and create a better contest for next year. Like Wikipedia itself, the Cup is a work in progress, and ideas for how it should work are more than welcome on the WikiCup talk page and on the scoring talk page. Also, people are more than welcome to sign up for next year's competition on the signup page. Well done and thank you to everyone involved – the Cup has been a pleasure to run, and we, as judges, have been proud to be a part of it. We hope that next year, however the Cup is working, and whoever is running it, it will be back, stronger and more popular than ever. Until then, goodbye and happy editing! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 03:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

How's life not fixing redirects even though it does NOTHING. Constant warnings, you don't give a fuck. Your 4th last edit sums you up. Not only are you an idiot, but you're an asshole.

WikiCup 2011
Hello. You are being contacted because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup but have not yet signed up for the 2011 WikiCup, which starts at midnight. It is not too late to sign up! The competition will remain open until at least January 31, and so it is not too late to enter. If you are interested, simply follow the instructions to add your username to the signup page, and a judge will contact you as soon as possible with an explanation of how to participate. The WikiCup is a friendly competition open to all Wikipedians, old and new, experienced and inexperienced, providing a fun and rewarding way to contribute quality content to Wikipedia. If you do not want to receive any further messages about the WikiCup, or you want to start receiving messages about the WikiCup, you may add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the WikiCup talk page or contact the judges directly. J Milburn and The ed17 06:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Abortion Userbox
Hi TJ Spyke,

While I enjoyed your abortion userbox and implemented it on my page, I found the red-on-blue combination painful to behold, so I toyed around with the color scheme on my particular instance of the box. I have left your template untouched. Again, thanks! Arielkoiman (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#000000; background-color:#aa9944; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks"> Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia! Hey Bzuk  (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

What goes around, comes around. Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

We both live in Rochester. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.153.117.250 (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 January newsletter
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. Signups are now closed, and we have 129 listed competitors, 64 of whom will make it to round two. Congratulations to, who, at the time of writing, has a comfortable lead with 228 points, followed by , with 144 points. Four others have over 100 points. Congratulations also go to, who scored the first points in the competition, claiming for Talk:Hurricane King/GA1, , who scored the first non-review points in the competition, claiming for Dognapping, and who was the first in the competition to use our new "multiplier" mechanic (explanation), claiming for Grigory Potemkin, a subject covered on numerous Wikipedias. Thanks must also go to Jarry1250 for dealing with all bot work- without you, the competition wouldn't be happening!

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round two is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 22:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 February newsletter
So begins round two of the WikiCup! We now have eight pools, each with eight random contestants. This round will continue until the end of April, when the top two of each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers of those remaining, will make it to round three. Congratulations to (first, with 487 points) and  (second, with 459), who stormed the first round. finished third with 223. Twelve others finished with over 100 points- well done to all of you! The final standings in round one can be seen here. A mere 8 points were required to reach round two; competition will no doubt be much more fierce this round, so be ready for a challenge! A special thanks goes, again, to for dealing with all bot work. This year's bot, as well as running smoothly, is doing some very helpful things that last year's did not. Also, thanks to for some helpful behind-the-scenes updating and number crunching.

Some news for those who are interested- March will see a GAN backlog elimination drive, which you are still free to join. Organised by WikiProject Good articles, the drive aims to minimise the GAN backlog and offers prizes to those who help out. Of course, you may well be able to claim WikiCup points for the articles you review as part of the drive. Also ongoing is the Great Backlog Drive, looking to work on clearing all of the backlogs on Wikipedia; again, incentives are offered, and the spirit of friendly competition is alive, while helping the encyclopedia is the ultimate aim. Though unrelated to the WikiCup, these may well be of interest to some of you.

Just a reminder of the rules; if you have done significant work on content this year and it is promoted in this round, you may claim for it. Also, anything that was promoted after the end of round one but before the beginning of round two may be claimed for in round two. Details of the rules can be found on this page. For those interested in statistics, a running total of claims can be seen here, and a very interesting table of that information (along with the highest scorers in each category) can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Service award level
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:9px;" class="plainlinks"> There has been a major revision of the the Service Awards: the edit requirements for the higher levels have been greatly reduced, to make them reasonably attainable. Because of this, your Service Award level has been changed, and you are now eligible for a higher level. I have taken the liberty of updating your award on your user page.

Herostratus (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you went up two levels. Congratulations, and thank you for your many contributions to the Wikipedia! Herostratus (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 March newsletter
We are half way through round two of the WikiCup, which will end on 28 April. Of the 64 current contestants, 32 will make it through to the next round; the two highest in each pool, and the 16 next highest scorers. At the time of writing, our current overall leader is with 231 points, who leads Pool H.  (Pool G) also has over 200 points, while 9 others (three of whom are in Pool D) have over 100 points. Remember that certain content (specifically, articles/portals included in at least 20 Wikipedias as of 31 December 2010 or articles which are considered "vital") is worth double points if promoted to good or featured status, or if it appears on the main page in the Did You Know column. There were some articles last round which were eligible for double points, but which were not claimed for. For more details, see WikiCup/Scoring.

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round three is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 01:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

ATHF userbox
May I have the formula for your ATHF userbox, the one that says, This user knows that Aqua Teen Hunger Force is #1 in the hood, G.? Juggalo Dan 420 (talk) 05:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 April newsletter
Round 2 of the 2011 WikiCup is over, and the new round will begin on 1 May. Note that any points scored in the interim (that is, for content promoted or reviews completed on 29-30 April) can be claimed in the next round, but please do not start updating your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. Fewer than a quarter of our original contestants remain; 32 enter round 3, and, in two months' time, only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. , who led Pool F, was our round champion, with 411 points, while 7 contestants scored between 200 and 300 points. At the other end of the scale, a score of 41 was high enough to reach round 3; more than five times the score required to reach round 2, and competition will no doubt become tighter now we're approaching the later rounds. Those progressing to round 3 were spread fairly evenly across the pools; 4 progressed from each of pools A, B, E and H, while 3 progressed from both pools C and F. Pools D and G were the most successful; each had 5 contestants advancing.

This round saw our first good topic points this year; congratulations to and  who also led pool H and pool B respectively. However, there remain content types for which no points have yet been scored; featured sounds, featured portals and featured topics. In addition to prizes for leaderboard positions, the WikiCup awards other prizes; for instance, last year, a prize was awarded to (who has been eliminated) for his work on In The News. For this reason, working on more unusual content could be even more rewarding than usual!

Sorry this newsletter is going out a little earlier than expected- there is a busy weekend coming up! A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 19:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 May newsletter
We're half way through round 3 of the 2011 WikiCup. There are currently 32 remaining in the competition, but only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. , of pool D, is our overall leader with nearly 200 points, while pools A, B and C are led by, and  respectively. The score required to reach the next round is 35, though this will no doubt go up significantly as the round progresses. We have a good number of high scorers, but also a considerable number who are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. Also, an important note concerning nominations at featured article candidates: if you are nominating content for which you intend to claim WikiCup points, please make this clear in the nomination statement so that the FAC director and his delegates are aware of the fact.

A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Itadaki Street DS JPN.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Itadaki Street DS JPN.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-Free rationale for File:JJ & Jeff.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:JJ & Jeff.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under Non-Free content criteria but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a Non-Free rationale.

If you have uploaded other Non-Free media, consider checking that you have specified the Non-Free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 June newsletter
We are half way through 2011, and entering the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; the semi-finals are upon us! Points scored in the interim (29/30 June) may be counted towards next round, but please do not update your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. 16 contestants remain, and all have shown dedication to the project to reach this far. Our round leader was who, among other things, successfully passed three articles through featured article candidates and claimed an impressive 29 articles at Did You Know, scoring 555 points. Casliber led pool D. Pool A was led by, claiming points for a featured article, a featured list and seven good article reviews, while pool C was led by , who claimed for two good articles, ten articles at Did You Know and four good article reviews. They scored 154 and 118 respectively. Pool B was by far our most competitive pool; six of the eight competitors made it through to round 4, with all of them scoring over 100 points. The pool was led by, who claimed for, among other things, three featured articles and five good articles. In addition to the four pool leaders, 12 others (the four second places, and the 8 next highest overall) make up our final 16. The lowest scorer who reached round 4 scored 76 points; a significant increase on the 41 needed to reach round 3. Eight of our semi-finalists scored at least twice as much as this.

No points were awarded this round for featured pictures, good topics or In the News, and no points have been awarded in the whole competition for featured topics, featured portals or featured sounds. Instead, the highest percentage of points has come from good articles. Featured articles, despite their high point cost, are low in number, and so, overall, share a comparable number of points with Did You Know, which are high in number but low in cost. A comparatively small but still considerable number of points come from featured lists and good article reviews, rounding out this round's overall scores.

We would again like to thank and  for invaluable background work, as well as all of those helping to provide reviews for the articles listed on WikiCup/Reviews. Please do keep using it, and please do help by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup.

Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here, for those interested, though it appears that neither are completely accurate at this time. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Meowth Party.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Meowth Party.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 18:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 July newsletter
We are half way through the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; there is less than a month to go before we have our final 8. Our pool leaders are (Pool A, 189 points) and  (Pool B, 165 points). The number of points required to reach the next round is not clear at this time; there are some users who still do not have any recorded points. Please remember to update your submissions' pages promptly. In addition, congratulations to PresN, who scored the first featured topic points in the competition for his work on Thatgamecompany related articles. Most points this round generally have, so far, come from good articles, with only one featured article (White-bellied Sea Eagle, from ) and two featured lists (Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story, from PresN and Grammy Award for Best Native American Music Album, from ). Points for Did You Know and good article reviews round out the scoring. No points have been awarded for In the News, good topics or featured pictures this round, and no points for featured sounds or portals have been awarded in the entire competition. On an unrelated note, preparation will be beginning soon for next year's WikiCup- watch this space!

There is little else to be said beyond the usual. Please list anything you need reviewing on WikiCup/Reviews, so others following the WikiCup can help, and please do help if you can by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup- points are, of course, offered for reviews at GAC. Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 11:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Myth Makers Super Kart GP.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Myth Makers Super Kart GP.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:IYH 5.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:IYH 5.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Meteos 2.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Meteos 2.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Master of Festivals.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Master of Festivals.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 July newsletter
The finals are upon us; we're down to the last few. One of the eight remaining contestants will be this year's WikiCup champion! 150 was the score needed to progress to the final; just under double the 76 required to reach round 4, and more than triple the 41 required to reach round 3. Our eight finalists are:


 * , Pool A's winner. Casliber has the highest total score in the competition, with 1528, the bulk of which is made up of 8 featured articles. He has the highest number of total featured articles (8, 1 of which was eligible for double points) and total did you knows (72) of any finalist. Casliber writes mostly on biology, including ornithology, botany and mycology.
 * , Pool B's winner and the highest scorer this round. PresN is the only finalist who has scored featured topic points, and he has gathered an impressive 330, but most of his points come from his 4 featured articles, one of which scored double. PresN writes mostly on video games and the Hugo Awards.
 * , Pool A's runner-up. Hurricanehink's points are mostly from his 30 good articles, more than any other finalist, and he is also the only finalist to score good topic points. Hurricanehink, as his name suggests, writes mostly on meteorology.
 * , Pool B's runner-up. Wizardman has completed 86 good article reviews, more than any other finalist, but most of his points come from his 2 featured articles. Wizardman writes mostly on American sport, especially baseball.
 * , the "fastest loser" (Pool A). Miyagawa has written 3 featured lists, one of which was awarded double points, more than any other finalist, but he was awarded points mostly for his 68 did you knows. Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, including dogs, military history and sport.
 * , the second "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Resolute's points come from his 9 good articles. He writes mostly on Canadian topics, including ice hockey.
 * , who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool A). Most of Evan's points come from his 10 good articles, and he writes mostly on meteorology.
 * , who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Phil's points come from his 9 good articles, 4 of which (more than any other finalist) were eligible for double points. He writes mostly on aeronautics.

We say goodbye to our seven other semi-finalists,, , , , , and. Everyone still in the competition at this stage has done fantastically well, and contributed greatly to Wikipedia. We're on the home straight now, and we will know our winner in two months.

In other news, preparations for next year's competition have begun with a brainstorming thread. Please, feel free to drop by and share any thoughts you have about how the competition should work next year. Sign ups are not yet open, but will be opened in due course. Watch this space. Further, there has been a discussion about the rule whereby those in the WikiCup must delcare their participation when nominating articles at featured article candidates. This has resulted in a bot being created by new featured article delegate. The bot will leave a message on FAC pages if the nominator is a participant in the WikiCup.

A reminder of the rules: any points scored after August 29 may be claimed for the final round, and please remember to update submission pages promptly. If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Please explain your US-centric page move
"Government Accountability Office" as an article title seems to imply that Americans (you're one, I presume) think their country is the only one in the world. I'd like an explanation. Tony  (talk)  14:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * TJ, I support your move back to the title without a disambiguator. Until Government Accountability Office (disambiguation) lists other agencies of the same name, there's no need to disambiguate the name. —C.Fred (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much what I was thinking. If no other articles have a similar name, then there is no reason to add a disambiguation. If there are are ever any other similar articles, I would be fine with moving it, but as of right now there are no pages with similar titles.  TJ   Spyke   15:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Even if there were other articles, we'd have to consider what's the primary topic. Consider the article titled Royal Air Force: even though there are other Royal Air Forces, the British one is the primary topic, so it doesn't have the disambiguated title of Royal Air Force (UK). —C.Fred (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 September newsletter
We are on this year's home straight, with less than a month to go until the winner of the 2011 WikiCup will be decided. The fight for first place is currently being contested by, and , all of whom have over 200 points. This round has already seen multiple featured articles (1991 Atlantic hurricane season from Hurricanehink and Northrop YF-23 from Sp33dyphil) and a double-scoring featured list (Miyagawa's 1948 Summer Olympics medal table). The scores will likely increase far further before the end of the round on October 31 as everyone ups their pace. There is not much more to say- thoughts about next year's competition are welcome on the WikiCup talk page or the scoring talk page, and signups will open once a few things have been sorted out.

If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 12:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll
This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 October newsletter
The 2011 WikiCup is now over, and our new champion is, who joins the exclusive club of the previous winners: (2007),  (2008),  (2009) and  (2010). The final standings were as follows:



Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.


 * The Featured Article Award:, for his performance in round 2. matched the score, but Casliber won the tiebreaker.
 * The Good Article Award:, for his performance in round 4.
 * The Featured List Award:, for his performance in round 4. matched the score, but Miyagawa won the tiebreaker.
 * The Recognised Topic Award (for good and featured topics):, for his performance in round 3.
 * The Did You Know Award:, for his performance in round 1.
 * The In the News Award:, for his performance in round 1.
 * The Reviewer Award (for good article reviews):, for his performance in round 3.

No prize was awarded for featured pictures, sounds or portals, as none were claimed throughout the competition. The awards will be handed out over the next few days. Congratulations to all our participants, and especially our winners; we've all had fun, and Wikipedia has benefitted massively from our content work.

Preparation for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Interested parties are invited to sign up and participate in our straw polls. It's been a pleasure to work with you all this year, and, whoever's taking part in and running the competition in 2012, we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn and The ed17 00:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

2012 WikiCup
Hi! As you've previously expressed interest in the competition, I'm just letting you know that the 2012 WikiCup is due to start in less than 24 hours. Signups are open, and will remain so for a few weeks after the beginning of the competition. The competition itself will follow basically the same format as last year, with a few small tweaks to point costs to reflect the opinions of the community. If you're interested in taking part, you're more than welcome, and if you know anyone who might be, please let them know too- the more the merrier! To join, simply add your name to WikiCup/2012 signups, and we will be in touch. Please feel free to direct any questions to me, or leave a note on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! You are receiving this note as you are listed on WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Please feel free to add or remove yourself. EdwardsBot (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Date Format
Hey! I appreciate the enthusiasm, but for most of the articles, date formats that actually spell out the month, rather than have just a number, are much less confusing. While someone from the United states might see 2011-1-6 as January 6, 2011, someone from england might see that same number as 1 June 2011. Thus, in order to keep the dates unambiguous, using the month spelled out is best. Hopefully that all made sense! Jeancey (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/TJ Spyke for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 January newsletter
WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010. Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is, due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at good article candidates. Second place is currently held by, whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is, who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!

The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.

A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.
 * was the first to score, with his good article review of Illinois v. McArthur.
 * was also the first to score points for an article, thanks to his work on Hurricane Debby (1982)- now a good article. Tropical storms have featured heavily in the Cup, and good articles currently have a relatively fast turnaround time for reviews.
 * was the first to score points for a did you know, with Russian submarine K-114 Tula. Military history is another subject which has seen a lot of Cup activity.
 * is also the first person to successfully claim bonus points. Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a good article, and was eligible for bonus points because the subject was covered on more than 20 other Wikipedias at the start of the competition. It is fantastic to see bonus points being claimed so early!
 * was the first to score points for an In the News entry, with Paedophryne amauensis. The lead image from the article was also used on the main page for a time, and it's certainly eye-catching!
 * was the first to score points for a featured article, and is, at the moment, the only competitor to claim for one. The article, "Halo" (Beyoncé Knowles song), was also worth double points because of its wide coverage. While this is an article that Jivesh and others have worked on for some time, it is undeniable that he has put considerable work into it this year, pushing it over the edge.

We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.

A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 February newsletter
Round 1 is already over! The 64 highest scorers have progressed to round 2. Our highest scorer was, again thanks mostly to a swathe of good articles on The X-Files. In second place was, thanks an impressive list of did you knows about racehorses. Both scored over 400 points. Following behind with over 300 points were, , and. February also saw the competition's first featured list: List of colleges and universities in North Dakota, from. At the other end of the scale, 11 points was enough to secure a place in this round, and some contestants with 10 points made it into the round on a tiebreaker. This is higher than the 8 points that were needed last year, but lower than the 20 points required the year before. The number of points required to progress to round 3 will be significantly higher.

The remaining contestants have been split into 8 pools of 8, named A through H. Round two will finish in two months time on 28 April, when the two highest scorers in each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers, will progress to round 3. The pools were entirely random, so while some pools may end up being more competitive than others, this is by chance rather than design.

The judges would like to point out two quick rules reminders. First, any content promoted during the interim period (that is, on or after 27 February) is eligible for points in round 2. Second, any content worked on significantly this year is eligible for points if promoted in this round. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which would otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk &bull; email) and The ed17 (talk &bull; email) 00:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 March newsletter
We are over half way through the second round of this year's WikiCup and things are going well! , of Pool B, is our highest overall scorer thanks to his prolific writings on television and film. In second place is Pool H's, thanks primarily to work on biological articles, especially in marine biology and herpetology. Third place goes to Pool E's, who also writes primarily on biology (including ornithology and botany) and has already submitted two featured articles this round. Of the 63 contestants remaining, 15 (just under a quarter) have over 100 points this round. However, 25 are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly. 32 contestants, the top two from each pool and the 16 next-highest scorers, will advance to round 3.

Congratulations to, whose impressive File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg became the competition's first featured picture. Also, congratulations to, who claimed good topic points, our first contestant this year to do so, for his work on Featured topics/1982 Atlantic hurricane season. This leaves featured topics and featured portals as the only sources of points not yet utilised. However, as recent statistics from show, no source has yet been utilised this competition to the same extent it has been previously!

It has been observed that the backlogs at good article candidates are building up again. While the points for good article reviews will be remaining constant, any help that can be offered keeping the backlog down would be appreciated. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk &bull; email) and The ed17 (talk &bull; email) 23:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 April newsletter
Round 2 of this year's WikiCup is over, and so we are down to our final 32, in what could be called our quarter-finals. The two highest scorers from each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers overall, have entered round 3, while 30 participants have been eliminated. Pool B's remains our top scorer with over 700 points; he continues to gain high numbers of points for his good articles on The X-Files, but also Millennium and other subjects. He has also gained points for a good topic, a featured list, multiple good article reviews and several did you knows. Pool E's was second, thanks primarily to his biology articles, with Pool H's  coming in third, with an impressive 46 did you knows, mostly on the subject of baseball. Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both scored over 600 points. Pools E and H proved our most successful, with each seeing 5 members qualify for round 3, while Pools C and D were the least, with each seeing only 3 reach round 3. However, it was Pool G which saw the lowest scoring, with a little under 400 points combined; Pool H, the highest scoring group, saw over triple that score.

65 points was the lowest qualifying score for round 3; significantly higher than the 11 required to enter round 2, and also higher than the 41 required to reach round 3 last year. However, in 2010, 100 points were needed to secure a place in round 3. 16 will progress to round 4. In round 3, 150 points was the 16th highest score, though, statistically, people tend to up their game a little in later rounds. Last year, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 points were needed. Guessing how many points will be required is not easy. We still have not seen any featured portals or topics this year, but, on the subject of less common content types, a small correction needs to be made to the previous newsletter: File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg, our first featured picture, was the work of both and, the latter of whom has also gone on to score with File:Map of the Battle of Guam, 1944.svg. Bonus points also continue to roll in; this round, earned triple points for her good articles on William the Conqueror and the Middle Ages, Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both earned triple points for their work on Western Jackdaw, now a good article,  earned triple points for her work on lettuce and work by  to ready antimony for good article status earned him triple points. managed to expand Vitus Bering far enough for a did you know, which was also worth triple points. All of these highly important topics featured on 50 or more Wikipedias at the start of the year.

An article on the WikiCup in the Wikimedia Blog, "Improving Wikipedia with friendly competition", was posted at the end of April. This may be of interest to those who are signed up to this newsletter, as well as serving as another way to draw attention to our project. Also, we would again like to thank and, for continued help behind the scenes. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk &bull; email) and The ed17 (talk &bull; email) 23:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sin.JPG
 Thanks for uploading File:Sin.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 May newsletter
We're halfway through round 3 (or the quarter finals, if you prefer) and things are running smoothly. We're seeing very high scoring; as of the time of writing, the top 16 all have over 90 points. This has already proved to be more competative than this time last year- in 2011, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 was the lowest qualifying score. People have also upped their game slightly from last round, which is to be expected as we approach the end of the competition. Leading Pool A is, whose points have mostly come from a large number of did you knows on marine biology. Pool B's leader,, is for the first time not our highest scorer at the time of newsletter publication, but his good articles on The X-Files and Millenium keep him in second place overall. leads Pool C, our quietest pool, with content in a variety of areas on a variety of topics. Pool D is led by, our current overall leader. Nearly half of Casliber's points come from his triple-scored Western Jackdaw, which is now a featured article.

This round has seen an unusually high number of featured lists, with nearly one in five remaining participants claiming one, and one user,, claiming two. Miyagawa's featured list, 1936 Summer Olympics medal table, was even awarded double points. By comparison, good article reviews seem to be playing a smaller part, and featured topics portals remain two content-types still unutilised in this competition. Other than that, there isn't much to say! Things are coming along smoothly. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:New Play Control.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:New Play Control.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 02:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:SmackDownvsRaw09.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:SmackDownvsRaw09.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:SSX Blur.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:SSX Blur.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:SSX Blur.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:SSX Blur.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:IYH 5.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:IYH 5.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 June newsletter
Apologies for the lateness of this letter; our usual bot wasn't working. We are now entering round 4, our semi-finals, and have our final 16. A score of 243 was required to reach this round; significantly more than 2011's 76 points, and only a little behind 2010's 250 points. By comparison, last year, 150 points in round 4 secured a place in the final; in 2010, 430 were needed. Commiserations to Pool A's, who scored 242 points, missing out on a place in the round by a whisker. However, congratulations to Pool B's, whose television articles have brought him another round victory. Pool A's came second overall, with an impressive list of biological did you knows, good articles and featured articles. Third overall was Pool D's, with a long list of contibutions, mostly relating to baseball. Of course, with the points resetting every round, the playing field has been levelled. The most successful Pool was Pool D, which saw seven into the final round. Pool B saw four, C saw three and Pool A saw only the two round leaders.

A quick note about other competitions taking place on Wikipedia which may be of interest. There are 13 days remaining in the June-July GAN backlog elimination drive, but it is not too late to take part. August will also see the return of The Core Contest- a one month long competition first run in 2007. While the WikiCup awards points for audited content on any subject, The Core Contest about is raw article improvement, focussing heavily on the most important articles on Wikipedia. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 11:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:SSX Blur.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:SSX Blur.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:SSX Blur.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:SSX Blur.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:SSX Blur.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:SSX Blur.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Your edit to List of video games featuring Mario
I'm not sure exactly what happened, but there seems to have been a few errors -- you outright erased proper section-pointed piped links (LCD Games), linked "Port" to Port (computer networking) while it evidently should be linked towards Porting, and changed wikilinks to bypass redirects which is discouraged by the editing guideline on Redirects. Thanks for your care in trying to improve the encyclopedia, however. :)  Salvidrim!   22:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was using a program to help me, normally I pay more attention.  TJ   Spyke   22:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you considered making AWB (or whatever software you're using) show that the edit is semi-automated in the edit summary?   Salvidrim!   23:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I forgot to click that box, I will make sure it's checked.  TJ   Spyke   23:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Haha, no worries. I know the intention was helpful and am not blaming you for anything! :)  Salvidrim!   00:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13
Hi. When you recently edited List of products published by Nintendo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tetris & Dr. Mario (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SSX Blur.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:SSX Blur.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 04:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Please be more careful with your cleanups
First of all I thank you for performing all of the cleanups that your edit history reveals. People like you who gnomishly slave away making small edits like this often go under appreciated and although I'm here to offer some criticism, I do appreciate your work and hope you will continue.

That said, I would like to ask you to be a bit more careful in the future regarding the "fixing" of redirects. Wikipedia's guidelines regarding redirects states that "While there are a limited number of cases where bypassing redirect is beneficial, it is generally an unhelpful exercise, and it can actually be detrimental." You've been around a long time and so I don't want to quote guidelines at you unnecessarily because I know it can be annoying but I just wanted to illustrate why bypassing redirects can be harmful because I don't think our previous conversation on the issue left much of an impression...

In this edit you made a large number of changes to the article, but the one in particular that I'd like to highlight is the changing of to The end result certainly seems to be the same. In both cases, clicking on the bluelink currently leads you to "The Pillars of the Earth#Board games", but a critical difference emerges as soon as someone (future editor X) gets up the initiative to create an article on the Pillars of the Earth tabletop game (i.e. to change the redirect into an article). Previous to your edit, the link at the "Game of the Year" article would have brought readers to X's new article on the tabletop game, but after your edit readers using this link would only have gone to a small subsection of the "The Pillars of the Earth" article. In order to repair the edit you'd made, X would have to do an in-depth text-only search of Wikipedia to locate links that can now be re-linked to their natural destination. In the meanwhile, your edit hasn't improved navigation in any way. It is at best neutral and at worst it is harmful.

Now I don't want to say that redirects should never be bypassed. Bypassing a redirect where there is no possible way that an article could ever be created on the target in the future (e.g. bypassing a misspelling, or an incorrect name, etc.) is helpful in my view. But if there is any chance that a future article may be written on the topic of the redirect (e.g. if it's only a redirect because it's a related topic without an article) then it's frankly harmful to Wikipedia's future interconnectivity to bypass the redirect.

Again, I don't mean to preach. I used to do exactly what you are doing in making cleanups to bypass redirects. It does seem counter-intuitive and messy to leave redirects in place when a direct link shrinks the "What Links Here" page. I hope you can see, though, that bypassing valid redirects can also harm the place. Thanks again for the gnomish work and please don't take this as personal criticism. -Thibbs (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK. I sometimes am not 100% familiar with a subject, and usually I am more careful than this in making a edit.  TJ   Spyke   00:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks again for your help. -Thibbs (talk) 11:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to set the records straight
I am not intentionally vandalizing Wikipedia! All I am doing is including further details on the tag teams and individual wrestlers (such as their birth names and members of the tag team.) Jayemd (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Their birth names are not needed or required, and all they do is add a redirect (i.e. the article on Shawn Michaels is at Shawn Michaels, not "Michael Hickenbottom"). This is not helpful, and makes it worse. You have been warned multiple times to stop it, both by me and others. So please stop.  TJ   Spyke   14:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 July newsletter
We're approaching the beginning of 2012's final round. Pool A sees as the leader, with 300 points being awarded for the featured article Bivalvia, and Pool B sees  in the lead, with 10 good articles, and over 35 articles eligible for good topic points. Pool A sees in second place with a number of articles relating to baseball, while Pool B's  follows Grapple X, with a variety of contributions including the high-scoring, high-importance featured article on the 2010 film Pride & Prejudice. Ruby2010, like Grapple X, also claimed a number of good topic points; despite this, not a single point has been claimed for featured topics in the contest so far. The same is true for featured portals.

Currently, the eighth-place competitor (and so the lowest scorer who would reach the final round right now) has scored 332, more than double the 150 needed to reach the final round last year. In 2010, however, 430 was the lowest qualifying score. In this competition, we have generally seen scores closer to those in 2010 than those in 2011. Let's see what kind of benchmark we can set for future competitions! As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 22:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

"Fixing" redirects
Hi. I noticed recently that you have made several "fix" edits to articles, which have largely consisted of redirecting links. While this is often useful or even required (to avoid ambiguity or disambig pages), many of the changes you have made were unnecessary and may even be harmful down the line. WP:NOTBROKEN outlines various reasons why piping a link may not always be useful or may even be detrimental, but I'll give a brief summary here.

Take "AA batteries" for example. You piped this to "AA battery", which is the current article title. However, it is highly unlikely that "AA batteries" will ever point to any article other than the one about AA batteries. It is also certainly possible that the article could be renamed at some point, thus creating a double redirect with the piped version.

Another example is "DualShock 3" - a redirect that currently points to "DualShock#DualShock 3". Currently when a user clicks on an un-piped "DualShock 3" link it takes them to the right place (so piping is unnecessary). More importantly though, it is entirely conceivable that at some point in the future DualShock 3 may be split off into its own article, at which point the simple "DualShock 3" link would take users right to it, while "DualShock#DualShock 3" would not (instead probably taking the user to a summary paragraph with a "main article link" above it).

I hope this has been helpful and you'll avoid unnecessary piping in future, <font face="sans-serif"><font color="#900">Alphathon    (<font color="#900">talk ) 16:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * And of course TJ Spyke knows that very well. Since you chose to ignore our last discussion about in in January and this reminder from two weeks ago and still 'fix' those redirects in direct violation of community guidelines I have temporarily blocked your account. I see no other options that might convince you to respect the community in this. Amalthea  11:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I rarely do those unneeded fixes, the majority of my edits are helpful. Whatever, guess you are mad because I am improving the site and making articles better. Why chase away good editors like myself? Learn what is good for the site and what isn't. Blocking good editors for improving articles is a BAD thing.  TJ   Spyke   11:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Rarely is simply not true, you systematically make those changes. And no, the community does not agree that they are improvements -- very often, as explained above and countless times before, those changes are damaging. I do realize that you make positive changes at the same time, but since nobody can convince you with words to stop making the damaging ones I see no other option left for me. Amalthea  12:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * How are any of them damaging? Maybe ones like the DualShock example might not be great changes (though more often than not, they will never get their own articles as they are not substantive enough to warrant them), but how is doing something like changing Kenny King to Kenny King "damaging"? If it's just the one like DualShock, maybe if I avoid those ones? Usually I do, sometimes I get carried away trying to improve the article.  TJ   Spyke   12:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Alphathon gave examples above, and I'm sure you find many more in the previous discussions in your archives, and in the linked guideline page. I'll list three more I noticed :
 * 'Fixing' a redirect is measurably damaging if it increases redundancy or removes information. E.g., section redirects like <tt> Megabyte per second </tt> are good because the exact section name needs only be maintained in the redirect page. Baking it into many pages with <tt> MB/s </tt> increases the work needed if the section header ever changes or the topic gets a standalone article (fixing 1 page vs. fixing all where it was used). Some will never be fixed since nobody is actively looking for them, meaning the usefulness of the section wikilinks deteriorates for our readers.
 * Changing <tt> or other nonlinear optical mechanisms </tt> to <tt> or other nonlinear optical mechanisms </tt> makes the page source harder to read.
 * It makes your diffs unnecessarily complex to read for others, and all of this without benefit for reader or editor.
 * I won't discuss the merits of the guideline here though. Main point is: you are deliberately ignoring an editing guideline and have done so for years, despite many editors coming here and pointing it out. A community project can't work that way. If you disagree with it, argue on its talk page to have it changed. Until then, if a redirect is correct and stable leave it alone. Amalthea  07:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll
This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Warning
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your user subpage at User:TJ Spyke may not meet Wikipedia's user page guideline&#32;because you have used bad language and have not showed respect for others' religions. If you believe that your userpage does not violate our guidelines, please leave a note on this page. As an alternative, you may add  to the top of the page in question and an administrator will delete it, or you can simply edit the page so that it meets Wikipedia's userpage guidelines. Thank you.
 * What, because I called Scientology a joke? It's not a religion, I treat actual religions with respect. I will consider rewording it, but I didn't say anything bad.  TJ   Spyke   20:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, not because you called Scientology a joke, mainly because you have used bad language. Thomas85753 08:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas85753 (talk • contribs)
 * What bad language are you talking about? The worst thing I say is "crap".  TJ   Spyke   10:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That is the general idea. Thomas85753 18:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas85753 (talk • contribs)
 * Who considers "crap" to be bad language though?  TJ   Spyke   19:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Some people do. Thomas85753 06:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas85753 (talk • contribs)
 * In fact, most people do. Thomas85753 06:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas85753 (talk • contribs)
 * That's an improper warning of course. 'Bad language' by itself is not at all problematic. The user page guideline lists a couple of things that are generally considered problematic, but established users usually get a lot of leeway on their user pages. Amalthea  07:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Per WP:UP, the anti-scientology stuff at your userpage should be removed. Probably 99.999% of people (those with common sense) agree with it, but it's really not the right place to post it. You're a good editor, and that sort of thing can only lead to a hassle for you, and offend people and encourage others to also start posting such statement. Others will say that if that's okay, then an attack page on Mormons and the hilarious South Park episode (dum dum dum) is okay, then Muslims, then Eskimos, then of course, the inevitable attack on the easiest group to vilify: taxi drivers. Yes, that's right, taxi drivers. Why? It's all too easy. Low IQs, neanderthalean posture, body odor, bad teeth, you name it. And why do they always change shifts at rush hours? I don't know. And what's that smell? Just what the heck is that smell? And the picture. It's never a picture of the actual taxi driver. What's that about? Turn on the air conditioner. No. Blah blah, it's broken. I don't want to hear that. And why is the window stuck. I have the right to open..... but I digress. Sorry. Anyway, please just remove the content. Think of the taxi drivers. Think of the Scientologist taxi drivers. Think of the children. Now, think of Pink Floyd. Now, listen to Pink Floyd. Really, really listen to Pink Floyd and all of this will seem meaningless.

Sorry for the long post, but I believe in getting right to the point. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've had that comment up since December 2007, and no one ever had a problem until this new editor who really only started editing this week (had had 4 edits in 2009, than nothing until August 19 of this year). I guess I can re-word it, but keep that I dislike the Scientology cult.  TJ   Spyke   12:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Since 2007??? Holy moly! It is only because you've been around for a while that I didn't remove it on sight. Normally I delete the stuff with the edit summary "removed polemical content per WP:UP" and move on. Straight up, no joking: That stuff is for Facebook. We're here to... you know rest. Please take my advice. Self-zap the content completely. Unblock request with.... you know the rest. Edit constructively.... you know the rest. Simple. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Can't, an admin who doesn't like when editors fix articles blocked me til September 6. So I can't even edit my own userpage.  TJ   Spyke   13:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No worries. I removed it for you. Sept 6 is soon. Do some fishing. Enjoy the end of the summer. Come back refreshed and edit constructively. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not what I would have done. I might change it a little, to keep my dislike of it but just word it better.  TJ   Spyke   14:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If you have dislike, please, post it at Facebook. This is not a place for attacking groups.


 * As for the fixing links thing: Trust the community. If they say something's a bad plan, listen to them. Who are we to question lots of Wikipedia's voices all saying the same thing? (Note: If those voices are breatharianists then ignore them. They don't know beans because they're weak from hunger.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 August newsletter
The final is upon us! We are down to our final 8. A massive 573 was our lowest qualifying score; this is higher than the 150 points needed last year and the 430 needed in 2010. Even in 2009, when points were acquired for mainspace edit count in addition to audited content, 417 points secured a place. That leaves this year's WikiCup, by one measure at least, our most competitive ever. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:
 * 1) once again finishes the round in first place, leading Pool B. Grapple X writes articles about television, and especially The X-Files and Millenium, with good articles making up the bulk of the score.
 * 2) led Pool A this round. Fourth-place finalist last year, Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, and has reached the final primarily off the back of his massive number of did you knows.
 * 3) was second in Pool B. Ruby2010 writes primarily on television and film, and scores primarily from good articles.
 * 4) finished third in Pool B. Casliber is something of a WikiCup veteran, having finished sixth in 2011 and fourth in 2010. Casliber writes on the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. Over half of Casliber's points this round were bonus points from the high-importance articles he has worked on.
 * 5) came second in Pool A. Also writing on biology, especially marine biology, Cwmhiraeth received 390 points for one featured article (Bivalvia) and one good article (pelican), topping up with a large number of did you knows.
 * 6) was third in Pool A. Muboshgu writes primarily on baseball, and this round saw Muboshgu's first featured article, Derek Jeter, promoted on its fourth attempt at FAC.
 * 7) was fourth in Pool A. She writes on a variety of topics, including horses, but this round also saw the high-importance lettuce reach featured article status.
 * 8) is another WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist in 2009 and 2010. He writes mostly on mycology.

However, we must also say goodbye to the eight who did not make the final, having fallen at the last hurdle:, , , , , , and. We hope to see you all next year.

On the subject of next year, a discussion has been opened here. Come and have your say about the competition, and how you'd like it to run in the future. This brainstorming will go on for some time before more focused discussions/polls are opened. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 September newsletter


We're over half way through the final, and so it is less than a month until we know for certain our 2012 WikiCup champion. currently leads, followed by, and. However, we have no one resembling a breakaway leader, and so the competition is a long way from over. Next month's newsletter will feature a list of our winners (who are not necessarily only the finalists) and keep your eyes open for an article on the WikiCup in a future edition of The Signpost. The leaders are already on a par with last year's winners, but a long way from the huge scores seen in 2010. That said, a repeat of the competition from 2010 seems unlikely.

It is good to see that three-quarters of our finalists have already scored bonus points this round. This shows that, contrary to criticism that the WikiCup has received in the past, the competition does not merely incentivise the writing of trivial articles; instead, our top competitors are still spending their time contributing to high-importance articles, and bringing them to a high standard. This does a great service to the encyclopedia and its readers. Thank you, and good work!

The planning for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Some straw polls have been opened concerning the scoring, and you can now sign up for next year's competition. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Billy the Wizard.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Billy the Wizard.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:HH 97.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:HH 97.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary deletion
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas85753 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC) <div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">
 * Many apologies, I didn't realise your talk page was archived. Thomas85753 10:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thomas85753 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

WikiCup 2012 October newsletter
The 2012 WikiCup has come to a close; congratulations to, our 2012 champion! Cwmhiraeth joins our exclusive club of previous winners: (2007),  (2008),  (2009),  (2010) and  (2011). Our final standings were as follows:



Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.


 * The featured article award goes to, for four featured articles in the final round.
 * The good article award also goes to, for 19 good articles in the second round.
 * The list award goes to, for three featured lists in the final round.
 * The topic award goes to, for three good topics (with around 40 articles) in round 4.
 * The did you know award goes to, for well over 100 DYKs in the final round.
 * The news award goes to, for 10 in the news items in round 3.
 * The picture award goes to, for two featured pictures in round 2.
 * The reviewer award goes to both (14 reviews in round 1) and  (14 reviews in round 3).
 * Finally, for achieving an incredible bonus point total in the final round, and for bringing the top-importance article frog to featured status, a biostar has been awarded to.

Awards will be handed out in the coming days; please bear with us! This year's competition also saw fantastic contributions in all rounds, from newer Wikipedians contributing their first good or featured articles, right up to highly experienced Wikipedians chasing high scores and contributing to topics outside of their usual comfort zones. It would be impossible to name all of the participants who have achieved things to be proud of, but well done to all of you, and thanks! Wikipedia has certainly benefited from the work of this year's WikiCup participants.

Next year's WikiCup will begin in January. Currently, discussions and polls are open, and all contributions are welcome. You can also sign up for next year's competition. There will be no further newsletters this year, although brief notes may be sent out in December to remind everyone about the upcoming competition. It's been a pleasure to work with you all, and we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Richard Nixon talk page notice
I have added a section on the talk page for the article Richard Nixon titled "Section deleted on 13 December 2012." Please share your thoughts on the talk page. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * December 27 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Extrasolar


 * Stark Raving Dad (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to George Bush

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 starting soon
Hi there; you're receiving this message because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup. This is just to remind you that the 2013 WikiCup will be starting on 1 January, and that signups will remain open throughout January. Old and new Wikipedians and WikiCup participants are warmly invited to take part in this year's competition. (Though, as a note to the more experienced participants, there have been a few small rules changes in the last few months.) If you have already signed up, let this be a reminder; you will receive a message with your submissions' page soon. Please direct any questions to the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn 19:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Redirects not bad
Since you are an experienced editor, I'm a little surprised at your "cleanup" edits on articles like Vince Foster that mostly just expand out redirects. Per WP:NOTBROKEN, "There is nothing inherently wrong with linking to redirects to articles. Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to bypass the redirect and point the link directly at the target page. While there are a limited number of cases where this is beneficial, it is generally an unhelpful exercise, and it can actually be detrimental."

The Foster article illustrates the detrimental aspect. For example, you changed "Deputy White House Counsel" to "Deputy White House Counsel". The former currently redirects to "White House Counsel", where the deputy position is described within. But what if the deputy position is made into its own article? (This does sometimes happen, see White House Deputy Chief of Staff or United States Deputy Secretary of State or United States Deputy Secretary of Defense for examples.) The "Deputy White House Counsel" usage will now point to the right article, while the "Deputy White House Counsel" usage will now point to the wrong article. Similar examples are Industrial Development Corporation and clinical depression. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * TJ Spyke knows that very well. I still see no other options that might convince you to respect the community in this, so I have again blocked your account. Amalthea  15:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My changes to that articles were not harmful, so I am surprised that a ban-happy, power-hungry editor exerted the only power they will ever have in life. Is it a surprise that fewer and fewer people are choosing to edit Wikipedia when they get bullied by some admins?  TJ   Spyke   15:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a community project. In the end, what is harmful is decided by the community, and the community has set up the guideline that you continue to break, and countless community members have come here and asked you to stop. Amalthea  16:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2013 WikiCup!
Hello, TJ Spyke, and welcome to the 2013 WikiCup! Your submissions' page is here. The competition begins at midnight UTC. The first round will last until the end of February, at which point the top 64 scorers will advance to the second round. We will be in touch at the end of every month, and signups are going to remain open until the end of January; if you know of anyone else who may like to take part, please let them know! A few reminders:
 * The rules can be found here. There have been a few changes from last year, which are listed on that page.
 * Anything you submit must have been nominated and promoted in 2013, and you need to have completed significant work upon it in 2013. (The articles you review at good article reviews does not need to have been nominated in 2013, but you do need to have started the review in 2013.) We will be checking.
 * If you feel that another competitor is breaking the rules or abusing the competition in some way, please let a judge know. Please do not remove entries from the submissions' pages of others yourself.
 * Don't worry about calculating precisely how many points everything is worth. The bot will do that. The bot may occasionally get something wrong- let a judge know, or post on the WikiCup talk page if that happens.
 * Please try to be prompt in updating submissions' pages so that they can be double-checked.

Overall, however, don't worry, and have fun. It doesn't matter if you make the odd mistake; these things happen. Questions can be asked on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 23:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 January newsletter
Signups are now closed; we have our final 127 contestants for this year's competition. 64 contestants will make it to the next round at the end of February, but we're already seeing strong scoring compared to previous years. currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader had 342 points, while in 2011, the leader had 228 points. We also have a large number of scorers when compared with this stage in previous years. was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:
 * was also the first to score for an article, with the good article Hurricane Gordon (2000). Again, this is a repeat of last year!
 * was the first to score for a did you know, with Marquis Flowers.
 * was the first to score for an in the news, with 2013 Houphouët-Boigny stampede.
 * was the first to score for a featured list, with list of Billboard Social 50 number-one artists.
 * was the first to score for a featured picture, with File:Thure de Thulstrup - L. Prang and Co. - Battle of Gettysburg - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg.

Featured articles, portals and topics, as well as good topics, are yet to feature in the competition.

This year, the bonus points system has been reworked, with bonus points on offer for old articles prepared for did you know, and "multiplier" points reworked to become more linear. For details, please see WikiCup/Scoring. There have been some teething problems as the bot has worked its way around the new system, but issues should mostly be ironed out- please report any problems to the WikiCup talk page. Here are some participants worthy of note with regards to the bonus points:


 * was the first to score bonus points, with Portland-class cruiser, a good article.
 * has the highest overall bonus points, as well as the highest scoring article, thanks to his work on Enrico Fermi, now a good article. The biography of such a significant figure to the history of science warrants nearly five times the normal score.
 * claimed bonus points for René Vautier and Nicolas de Fer, articles that did not exist on the English Wikipedia at the start of the year; a first for the WikiCup. The articles were eligible for bonus points because of fact they were both covered on a number of other Wikipedias.

Also, a quick mention of, who may well have already written the oddest article of the WikiCup this year: did you know that the Fucking mayor objected to Fucking Hell on the grounds that there was no Fucking brewery? The gauntlet has been thrown down; can anyone beat it?

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox People's Choice Awards
Template:Infobox People's Choice Awards has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

"Cleanup"
Hi there. On a few occasions I've seen you go through articles performing "cleanup" (e.g. this edit) where you pipe redirects such as  and   where they previously used redirects. This is not beneficial. You may wish to give WP:NOTBROKEN a read with regard to this, but in a nutshell linking to redirects such as DualShock 2 is preferred, since:
 * 1) it causes no problems to link to said redirect - it still takes the user to the same place
 * 2) if the page format of DualShock (in this example) is changed, it is simply a case of fixing the redirect to have all articles point to the right place
 * 3) if at any point the DualShock 2 portion of the article is split into its own article, there is no work to be done to fix all the direct section links - they will point directly to the new article

Of course fixing redirects such as  →   is useful, since the former is simply a common misspelling, but generally, don't "fix" redirects unless something like this is the case.

<font face="sans-serif"><font color="#900">Alphathon    (<font color="#900">talk ) 10:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * TJ Spyke is well aware. Restored block. Amalthea  15:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Trucking
Hi there. This edit claims to be a cleanup with AWB, but in the process you added a mistake; the game was never released for the Gamecube (as per the very first line of the article), and so the Media section is wrong (and has been for three years now). How did that happen? Were you pasting something from elsewhere without checking? 87.115.34.70 (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 February newsletter
Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.

Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:
 * , primarily for an array of warship GAs.
 * , primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
 * , due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with, this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.

Other contributors of note include:
 * , whose Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores.
 * , whose Mycena aurantiomarginata was the first featured article this year.
 * and, who both claimed points for articles in the Major League Baseball tie-breakers topic, the first topic points in the competition.
 * , who claimed for the first full good topic with the Casting Crowns studio albums topic.

Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by : did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...

March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!

A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 11:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Fall Brawl 95.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:Fall Brawl 95.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Fall Brawl 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:Fall Brawl 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Fall Brawl 93.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:Fall Brawl 93.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Fall Brawl 94.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:Fall Brawl 94.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 95.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 95.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:SuperBrawl Revenge.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:SuperBrawl Revenge.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:SuperBrawl VII.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:SuperBrawl VII.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:SuperBrawlII.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:SuperBrawlII.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:SuperBrawl IV.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:SuperBrawl IV.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:SuperBrawl VI.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:SuperBrawl VI.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 90.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 90.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 91.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 91.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 92.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 92.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Ashley Fliehr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Providence High School


 * List of acronyms: W (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to WWF


 * Takeshi's Castle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Fuji

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Ashley Fliehr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Providence High School


 * List of acronyms: W (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to WWF


 * Takeshi's Castle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Fuji

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Ashley Fliehr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Providence High School


 * List of acronyms: W (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to WWF


 * Takeshi's Castle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Fuji

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Ashley Fliehr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Providence High School


 * List of acronyms: W (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to WWF


 * Takeshi's Castle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Fuji

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Ashley Fliehr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Providence High School


 * List of acronyms: W (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to WWF


 * Takeshi's Castle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Fuji

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and  claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place and second place  both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 16:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Ashley Fliehr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Providence High School


 * List of acronyms: W (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to WWF


 * Takeshi's Castle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Fuji

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and  claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place and second place  both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 16:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Ashley Fliehr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Providence High School


 * List of acronyms: W (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to WWF


 * Takeshi's Castle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Fuji

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Question about cleanup process
Hi TJ Spyke, I noticed that you've been cleaning up numerous articles today and I was curious how you were doing it. Is it all by hand or do you use a program? Specifically I'm curious how you check the wikilinks. Are you testing each one individually or is there a tool you have that highlights all redirects? -Thibbs (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I use WPCleaner to check articles, but there are some edits that can't be made with it (like spellchecking, typos, etc.), so I then manually edit it after (essentially, I copy and paste the results from WPCleaner, then continue editing the article).  TJ   Spyke   21:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. Is WPCleaner something that you can download from a Wikimedia site/affiliate or should I just Google it if I want to find it? -Thibbs (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here you go: WPCleaner.  TJ   Spyke   21:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm sorry to say I've reverted your edit at the Derby Stallion article yet again. The links that you are "fixing" are indeed redirect links. And per WP:NOTBROKEN, redirects within an article are not supposed to be changed so that they point to the target article instead. There are a number of reasons why this is harmful to Wikipedia and they're clearly spelled out under WP:NOTBROKEN. This has become a problem in the past with users accidentally abusing the Navigation popup tool to "fix" redirects as you're doing and the result was this page. This is actually the reason I was asking above what tool you were using. I was curious to see what other tools were being subjected to this kind of abuse. The WPCleaner talk page is filled with comments regarding users mistakenly "fixing" redirects (e.g. 1, 2, 3, and many more in the archives from 2008 and earlier). The thing is... I've already explained all of this to you in the past (see e.g. 1 and 2). And I know you are aware of this issue because you have already received a final warning on the subject. So I really don't see how what you are doing could be considered good faith editing. Your editing is contrary to the guidelines and you have been repeatedly told this and warned to stop. Normally I'd suggest trying to get the guidelines changed before carrying on in this way, but in this case from your block log it's clear to me that you've consciously decided to change matters unilaterally rather than by seeking consensus. For this reason I've requested administrative action. -Thibbs (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, you did not read NOTBROKEN correctly at all. I have not been making the kinds of edits that got me into trouble before, I have been careful to only makes ones that follow the guidelines. I am sorry that you are not a good editor and dont like others making articles better, but stop vandalizing pages by reverting good edits. I am hesitant to give you a warning, but I will. Frankly, its people like you who are driving editors away from Wikipedia and preventing so many articles from being improved. Go away.  TJ   Spyke   00:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't react like this to new editors. I react this way to editors who have been editing here for 7-odd years and are among the top 400 most prolific editors and who have received a shocking number of warnings and frank blocks including an indef block. You obviously know better than to persist in these games but yet you continue. AGF only extends so far. You clearly have no regard for community guidelines founded on consensus and are only interested in your own editorial decisions. I'm sorry that you decided to take this route. It was a very poor decision on your part. -Thibbs (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, to Derby Stallion (series) is full of unhelpful changes as per WP:NOTBROKEN.  Amalthea  09:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, I see no unhelpful edits. I will not pretend 100% of my edits have been helpful, but ask any average editor and that change is nothing but helpful. And frankly, you shouldnt drive away good editors since fewer and fewer people are editing Wikipedia now. I also notice that I only get hounded when I mass edit articles, I dont get harassed when I only edit a few articles a day.  TJ   Spyke   20:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "It is likewise unhelpful to edit visible links for no reason other than to avoid redirects." Amalthea  22:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A great majority of your NOTBROKEN violations are harmful actually. Try actually reading the guideline. You might be surprised to discover that there are at least six explicitly listed reasons not to change (bypass) redirects. One obvious one is that you are whitewashing usage stats - an activity that is at best completely pointless. But more often it's not completely harmless. It's directly harmful because it obscures the need for new articles on topics that aren't covered and it hides more appropriate and thus needed page-moves.
 * How on earth could these violations be "nothing but helpful"? I can't think of a single way that they help. Correcting incorrect titles or misspelled words or redirect like that is one thing, but how does it help anybody if you change horse breaking to horse training (to take a random example from the Derby Stallion article)? It hides the fact that there is no article on horse breaking - a clearly distinct concept from horse training and it reduces the likelihood that anyone will write an article on horse breaking. In what world does that help in any way whatsoever? At very best it's a completely pointless time-wasting activity. And it's one that you have been warned over and over and over again to stop. Does the consensus of your fellow editor on this issue really matter so little to you that you are unwilling to put an end to this distinctly non-helpful activity? Does the possibility that you may get blocked for a 24th (!!!) time mean nothing to you? I hope I'm not overreacting here, but I find your conduct in this one trivial editorial area to be truly incomprehensible. -Thibbs (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been careful to avoid those types of link changes. How is changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3" doing any harm? There is never gonna be a "Playstation 3" article, ever. And in that Derby Stallion article, changing "PlayStation" to "PlayStation (console)" IS directly helpful and needed because the latter refers to the game system called PlayStation and the former refers to the general product line. Or changing links to "Famicom" to be "Nintendo Entertainment System|Famicom", there will never be a separate Famicom article because it's just the Japanese name of the NES. Sometimes I make mistakes (like with the horse breaking one), but I see it as vandalism when editors revert the whole edit instead of just specific link changes they see as bad.  TJ   Spyke   15:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Look I recognize that apart from this one issue (and I guess the 3RR stuff from your past that I think you've mostly stopped now) you are a good editor. And I also recognize that you're human and that you may make mistakes. But seeing as how you've made so many many mistakes in this one particular area I would seriously recommend avoiding it altogether. Just skimming the cleanups you've performed since you were last unblocked, it's apparent that the large majority of the redirect "fixes" you performed were potentially harmful. And a tiny minority of them are helpful in any way.
 * Is there a reason you feel compelled to change the redirects? I assume it's not just to boost your edit count, right? But is it just because it looks ugly on WPCleaner? Or do you really think that this is somehow helpful? If you do think it is helpful then have you considered making the case to change the guidelines at WP:NOTBROKEN? Because there are only 2 listed exceptions to that guideline currently. I wouldn't say that this is a complete list of all good exceptions, though. Your example of changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3", for instance, seems to me to be correcting a misspelling (or really a mis-capitalization). And I think that this is helpful and that it should be listed as an exception to WP:NOTBROKEN.
 * Why don't you and I try to come up with some exceptions that we could propose to the community together to improve the guidelines so that you're not constantly violating them? If you could come up with a reason why changing "video arcade" to "amusement arcade" or how changing "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System" or how changing "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" helps in any way then you could certainly make that suggestion as well. This would be a much much better way of approaching the problem than just ignoring everyone's warnings and getting banned over and over, don't you think? I'd be willing to help draft some proposed changes if you're willing to engage with me and explain why you feel compelled to violate this guideline. -Thibbs (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me (and withe something like the Dragon Quest, it's because the series name in English was Dragon Warrior before the the Dragon Quest VIII. Amusement arcade and video arcade are essentially interchangeable terms like "pop" and "soda". As for Famicom, aren't we supposed to use English names of products if that is the best known name? Famicom is just the Japanese name of the NES, so I would think other WP policies supported changing them to NES). I've never bothered trying to have NOTBROKEN changed because I know from experience how hard it can be to have policies on Wikipedia changed. Maybe later today or something we can start working on this together to propose changes that seem like common sense to most people.  TJ   Spyke   16:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm encouraged by your attitude. I think we should discuss this thoroughly between us here before proposing anything so that we're clear in our arguments. It's OK if we disagree too, since we can propose changes individually to be accepted piecemeal rather than only as a single package. Anyway here are my thoughts on what you've said just above:
 * Like the term "video arcade", the other two are also examples of synonymous terms: Dragon Warrior is the North American term whereas the English term is actually Dragon Quest (the same is true for all European countries and Japan actually); Famicom is the original Japanese name for the NES. According to NOTBROKEN (point 6), the use of a synonymous redirect term provides useful information relating to usage of the term which can be considered as evidence for renaming the article. By systematically changing these links to the current non-redirect title, you are manipulating the usage statistics. As an example: it might be that the term "Dragon Quest" is better known than "Dragon Warrior", but because you'd have changed all of the "Dragon Quest" redirects into "Dragon Warrior," you would have eradicated this information and we would get a false impression that "Dragon Warrior" was the most commonly used term when in reality it was only the most commonly used because the statistics had been manipulated. If you don't like that example, try imagining the reverse. Imagine someone who called the game "Dragon Quest" trying to make the case that the article should be renamed. So first he would change all the links to redirects and then point to the incoming links as evidence that everyone calls it Dragon Quest. You can see how that would be a problem, right? I think what NOTBROKEN is saying is that it's safest if we rely on the real usage statistics by refraining from changing synonymous terms. They are synonyms, after all, so the meaning is identical, right?
 * But I think you might have a point if your central concern was consistency. There have been large discussions in the past regarding whether or not Wikipedia should preferentially use the term "Sega Genesis" or "Master Drive" for example. I'm sure the same could exist for terms from popular consumer products like "Famicom/NES" or "Dragon Quest/Warrior" as well. If there has been a community discussion where one term was decided as the preferred term then I think you could make the case that perhaps it would be a good idea to use a single term in the interest of consistency. Does that sound like it might be the core of your argument for these words? Or do you instead find a problem with NOTBROKEN's argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics?
 * Another redirect dodge I was hoping you could explain is when you changed "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games". These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN's argument that "Shortcuts or redirects to sections of articles ... should never be bypassed, as the section headings on the page may change over time [and] Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links" (point 4; emphasis and ellipses added). So you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions? -Thibbs (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi TJ Spyke. Just checking in again. What's happening now? Why has this conversation stalled? Have you had a chance to read what I just wrote above? I noticed that you've again resumed with the NOTBROKEN violations (swapping "United States of America" for "United States"). I don't think it's too much to ask that you completely refrain from this kind of edit until we've finished discussing our plans for how to present our argument at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. You are violating the guidelines when you make this kind of edit and you've been asked to stop over and over again. Please help me come up with some exceptions that we can present for consensus instead of just continuing to stubbornly violate the guidelines and hope that I'll go away. I won't. I really want to work with you here, but if I see it again I will bring it to AN/I. -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, I didnt do anything wrong with United States. It's the common name of the country and what everyone writes (hell, even the article uses the name) and I know that did NOT violate any rule. Frankly, saying that deleting two words so it uses the common name is wrong, is like saying you can't edit a article to fix a spelling mistake. Might as well freeze all editing. Did I somehow violate it in another article when I changed Major League Baseball to Major League Baseball ? Anyways, i've been busy. But im free now.  TJ   Spyke   15:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Repairing broken wikilinks is not a violation of NOTBROKEN, but changing from one synonymous term (like the official name of a country) to another synonymous term (like the common name for a country) for the same target article is definitely a violation of NOTBROKEN. I don't mean this to sound rude, but you have to accept the fact that your judgment on whether or not a redirect "fix" violates NOTBROKEN is clearly quite poor. I strongly urge you to avoid making those kinds of edits even if you are certain that you're in the right because you are obviously unable to differentiate between violations and non-violations. Anyway I'm glad to hear that you're free now and I'm eager to get to work on the exceptions. -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding Dragon Warrior/Quest, it is not true that Quest was common in European countries. The first game in the series even RELEASED in Europe was Dragon Warrior Monsters in 1999 (where it used "Warrior"), they didnt get another one until Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King (which was when Square Enix FIRST used the "Quest" name outside of Japan). So considering that for almost 20 years the only English name of the series was "Warrior", it makes sense for the ones released with the Warrior name to use that. As for exceptions to NOTBROKEN:


 * I think fixing spelling mistakes and capitalization (i.e. Playstation to PlayStation) are good ones that are not controversial.
 * Hmmm, maybe switching some to the most common name can be OK (though within the right context)
 * Sometimes things will never get an article. I.e. a character who appeared once on a TV show 20 years ago will probably never get an article as they are not notable enough, but they might have an entry in a article about characters from that show. Is it a problem to change a link to that section specifically?
 * If a product is released under one name in most of the world, shouldn't it be OK to write that as the name? I.e. NES/Famicom. Famicom is the Japanese name of the system, but they are still the same system. Doesn't it make sense to change the links to NES? It's especially ridiculous when some articles say a game was released on the NES and Famicom (implying they are different).

Maybe others, but these are off the top of my head.  TJ   Spyke   15:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All PAL versions of the main series are called "Dragon Quest," but that's quite beside the point. The point is that these are synonymous terms and "fixing" them to avoid the redirect violates NOTBROKEN point #6. Unless there has been a discussion leading to a consistency-based preference for one term over the other, the term used by the first European spinoff title has no significance whatsoever and the redirect should not be altered. But this brings me to the question I asked last week:
 * Is switching "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" (or "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System", etc.) something that you have been doing in the interest of inter-article consistency? Is that the core of your argument? Or do you simply reject NOTBROKEN's point #6 (i.e. the argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics)?
 * And as long as I'm re-asking questions from last week,...
 * Could you explain your thought process behind changing "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games"? These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN point #4 (described in last week's comment above). Do you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions?
 * Regarding your exceptions, I agree strongly with the first one (spelling & capitalization). That's definitely going into the final draft of our proposal. I also think that the alteration of redirect terms to reflect a consistent consensus-based terminology (if indeed such a consensus exists) is a good idea. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
 * The other three points you bring up are kind of confusing for me. I don't really think you've presented any argument for making them into exceptions. Basically your reasoning appears to boil down to "Let's make these into exceptions, because why not?" The problem with this is that NOTBROKEN is a consensus-based guideline. Nobody would take us seriously if we proposed exceptions to it without actually giving concrete reasons why the exceptions are needed. The answer to your "is it a problem?" and "shouldn't it be OK?" questions above would be answered by the editors at NOTBROKEN with "Yes it's a problem (see point #4), and no it's not OK (see point #6)." These are consensus-based views on those exact topics.
 * To create an exception we can't just ignore consensus. We have to find a reason that the consensus view is too broad and that in narrowly definable situations the general rules at NOTBROKEN should be excepted. Then we have to convince others based on solid reasoning. If there is no way to distinguish the area to which the rule applies from the area to which the exception applies then we have to propose knocking down part of the rules which will be a much more difficult task and will absolutely require ironclad arguments, not just "why not?" In addition to answering the questions I bulleted above, could you please try to think of specific reasons why we need (or how it would be helpful to have) an exception for common names, obscure aspects, and synonymous terms? -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again TJ Spyke. What is your schedule like? Are you going to have any free time in the next few weeks? I'd like to move forward with our plans regarding the development of a few more exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN. It's been nearly a month since we began talking about this, but if we're to move this forward we have to actually discuss it. I don't want to do this without your help. In fact most of my interest in getting this done is to help editors like you who seem to have problems with the current guidelines. Is this something that still interests you? When will you be available to answer questions like those I asked in the last post? Please don't just leave me hanging here. -Thibbs (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well while I'm waiting for word from you on some kind of timeframe I noticed that you'd performed a few more redirect "fixes" since I last asked you to stop and I can report that I agree most of them. But edits like this and this suggest further exceptions to the rule. From the first of those two links (relinking to the actual page name on a dab page), I think this brings up a good point - that we should add an exception for disambiguation pages per WP:PIPING. The second one (changing a link to a plural term into a link to the singular) looks like just another "fix" for reasons of your own. Can you explain that change? Was there a reason you decided to again violate NOTBROKEN in that case? For all I know there may be policy/guideline supporting that edit but if so then this suggests another good exception. -Thibbs (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Ashley Fliehr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Providence High School


 * List of acronyms: W (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to WWF


 * Takeshi's Castle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Fuji

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Question about cleanup process
Hi TJ Spyke, I noticed that you've been cleaning up numerous articles today and I was curious how you were doing it. Is it all by hand or do you use a program? Specifically I'm curious how you check the wikilinks. Are you testing each one individually or is there a tool you have that highlights all redirects? -Thibbs (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I use WPCleaner to check articles, but there are some edits that can't be made with it (like spellchecking, typos, etc.), so I then manually edit it after (essentially, I copy and paste the results from WPCleaner, then continue editing the article).  TJ   Spyke   21:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. Is WPCleaner something that you can download from a Wikimedia site/affiliate or should I just Google it if I want to find it? -Thibbs (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here you go: WPCleaner.  TJ   Spyke   21:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm sorry to say I've reverted your edit at the Derby Stallion article yet again. The links that you are "fixing" are indeed redirect links. And per WP:NOTBROKEN, redirects within an article are not supposed to be changed so that they point to the target article instead. There are a number of reasons why this is harmful to Wikipedia and they're clearly spelled out under WP:NOTBROKEN. This has become a problem in the past with users accidentally abusing the Navigation popup tool to "fix" redirects as you're doing and the result was this page. This is actually the reason I was asking above what tool you were using. I was curious to see what other tools were being subjected to this kind of abuse. The WPCleaner talk page is filled with comments regarding users mistakenly "fixing" redirects (e.g. 1, 2, 3, and many more in the archives from 2008 and earlier). The thing is... I've already explained all of this to you in the past (see e.g. 1 and 2). And I know you are aware of this issue because you have already received a final warning on the subject. So I really don't see how what you are doing could be considered good faith editing. Your editing is contrary to the guidelines and you have been repeatedly told this and warned to stop. Normally I'd suggest trying to get the guidelines changed before carrying on in this way, but in this case from your block log it's clear to me that you've consciously decided to change matters unilaterally rather than by seeking consensus. For this reason I've requested administrative action. -Thibbs (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, you did not read NOTBROKEN correctly at all. I have not been making the kinds of edits that got me into trouble before, I have been careful to only makes ones that follow the guidelines. I am sorry that you are not a good editor and dont like others making articles better, but stop vandalizing pages by reverting good edits. I am hesitant to give you a warning, but I will. Frankly, its people like you who are driving editors away from Wikipedia and preventing so many articles from being improved. Go away.  TJ   Spyke   00:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't react like this to new editors. I react this way to editors who have been editing here for 7-odd years and are among the top 400 most prolific editors and who have received a shocking number of warnings and frank blocks including an indef block. You obviously know better than to persist in these games but yet you continue. AGF only extends so far. You clearly have no regard for community guidelines founded on consensus and are only interested in your own editorial decisions. I'm sorry that you decided to take this route. It was a very poor decision on your part. -Thibbs (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, to Derby Stallion (series) is full of unhelpful changes as per WP:NOTBROKEN.  Amalthea  09:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, I see no unhelpful edits. I will not pretend 100% of my edits have been helpful, but ask any average editor and that change is nothing but helpful. And frankly, you shouldnt drive away good editors since fewer and fewer people are editing Wikipedia now. I also notice that I only get hounded when I mass edit articles, I dont get harassed when I only edit a few articles a day.  TJ   Spyke   20:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "It is likewise unhelpful to edit visible links for no reason other than to avoid redirects." Amalthea  22:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A great majority of your NOTBROKEN violations are harmful actually. Try actually reading the guideline. You might be surprised to discover that there are at least six explicitly listed reasons not to change (bypass) redirects. One obvious one is that you are whitewashing usage stats - an activity that is at best completely pointless. But more often it's not completely harmless. It's directly harmful because it obscures the need for new articles on topics that aren't covered and it hides more appropriate and thus needed page-moves.
 * How on earth could these violations be "nothing but helpful"? I can't think of a single way that they help. Correcting incorrect titles or misspelled words or redirect like that is one thing, but how does it help anybody if you change horse breaking to horse training (to take a random example from the Derby Stallion article)? It hides the fact that there is no article on horse breaking - a clearly distinct concept from horse training and it reduces the likelihood that anyone will write an article on horse breaking. In what world does that help in any way whatsoever? At very best it's a completely pointless time-wasting activity. And it's one that you have been warned over and over and over again to stop. Does the consensus of your fellow editor on this issue really matter so little to you that you are unwilling to put an end to this distinctly non-helpful activity? Does the possibility that you may get blocked for a 24th (!!!) time mean nothing to you? I hope I'm not overreacting here, but I find your conduct in this one trivial editorial area to be truly incomprehensible. -Thibbs (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been careful to avoid those types of link changes. How is changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3" doing any harm? There is never gonna be a "Playstation 3" article, ever. And in that Derby Stallion article, changing "PlayStation" to "PlayStation (console)" IS directly helpful and needed because the latter refers to the game system called PlayStation and the former refers to the general product line. Or changing links to "Famicom" to be "Nintendo Entertainment System|Famicom", there will never be a separate Famicom article because it's just the Japanese name of the NES. Sometimes I make mistakes (like with the horse breaking one), but I see it as vandalism when editors revert the whole edit instead of just specific link changes they see as bad.  TJ   Spyke   15:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Look I recognize that apart from this one issue (and I guess the 3RR stuff from your past that I think you've mostly stopped now) you are a good editor. And I also recognize that you're human and that you may make mistakes. But seeing as how you've made so many many mistakes in this one particular area I would seriously recommend avoiding it altogether. Just skimming the cleanups you've performed since you were last unblocked, it's apparent that the large majority of the redirect "fixes" you performed were potentially harmful. And a tiny minority of them are helpful in any way.
 * Is there a reason you feel compelled to change the redirects? I assume it's not just to boost your edit count, right? But is it just because it looks ugly on WPCleaner? Or do you really think that this is somehow helpful? If you do think it is helpful then have you considered making the case to change the guidelines at WP:NOTBROKEN? Because there are only 2 listed exceptions to that guideline currently. I wouldn't say that this is a complete list of all good exceptions, though. Your example of changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3", for instance, seems to me to be correcting a misspelling (or really a mis-capitalization). And I think that this is helpful and that it should be listed as an exception to WP:NOTBROKEN.
 * Why don't you and I try to come up with some exceptions that we could propose to the community together to improve the guidelines so that you're not constantly violating them? If you could come up with a reason why changing "video arcade" to "amusement arcade" or how changing "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System" or how changing "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" helps in any way then you could certainly make that suggestion as well. This would be a much much better way of approaching the problem than just ignoring everyone's warnings and getting banned over and over, don't you think? I'd be willing to help draft some proposed changes if you're willing to engage with me and explain why you feel compelled to violate this guideline. -Thibbs (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me (and withe something like the Dragon Quest, it's because the series name in English was Dragon Warrior before the the Dragon Quest VIII. Amusement arcade and video arcade are essentially interchangeable terms like "pop" and "soda". As for Famicom, aren't we supposed to use English names of products if that is the best known name? Famicom is just the Japanese name of the NES, so I would think other WP policies supported changing them to NES). I've never bothered trying to have NOTBROKEN changed because I know from experience how hard it can be to have policies on Wikipedia changed. Maybe later today or something we can start working on this together to propose changes that seem like common sense to most people.  TJ   Spyke   16:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm encouraged by your attitude. I think we should discuss this thoroughly between us here before proposing anything so that we're clear in our arguments. It's OK if we disagree too, since we can propose changes individually to be accepted piecemeal rather than only as a single package. Anyway here are my thoughts on what you've said just above:
 * Like the term "video arcade", the other two are also examples of synonymous terms: Dragon Warrior is the North American term whereas the English term is actually Dragon Quest (the same is true for all European countries and Japan actually); Famicom is the original Japanese name for the NES. According to NOTBROKEN (point 6), the use of a synonymous redirect term provides useful information relating to usage of the term which can be considered as evidence for renaming the article. By systematically changing these links to the current non-redirect title, you are manipulating the usage statistics. As an example: it might be that the term "Dragon Quest" is better known than "Dragon Warrior", but because you'd have changed all of the "Dragon Quest" redirects into "Dragon Warrior," you would have eradicated this information and we would get a false impression that "Dragon Warrior" was the most commonly used term when in reality it was only the most commonly used because the statistics had been manipulated. If you don't like that example, try imagining the reverse. Imagine someone who called the game "Dragon Quest" trying to make the case that the article should be renamed. So first he would change all the links to redirects and then point to the incoming links as evidence that everyone calls it Dragon Quest. You can see how that would be a problem, right? I think what NOTBROKEN is saying is that it's safest if we rely on the real usage statistics by refraining from changing synonymous terms. They are synonyms, after all, so the meaning is identical, right?
 * But I think you might have a point if your central concern was consistency. There have been large discussions in the past regarding whether or not Wikipedia should preferentially use the term "Sega Genesis" or "Master Drive" for example. I'm sure the same could exist for terms from popular consumer products like "Famicom/NES" or "Dragon Quest/Warrior" as well. If there has been a community discussion where one term was decided as the preferred term then I think you could make the case that perhaps it would be a good idea to use a single term in the interest of consistency. Does that sound like it might be the core of your argument for these words? Or do you instead find a problem with NOTBROKEN's argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics?
 * Another redirect dodge I was hoping you could explain is when you changed "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games". These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN's argument that "Shortcuts or redirects to sections of articles ... should never be bypassed, as the section headings on the page may change over time [and] Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links" (point 4; emphasis and ellipses added). So you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions? -Thibbs (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi TJ Spyke. Just checking in again. What's happening now? Why has this conversation stalled? Have you had a chance to read what I just wrote above? I noticed that you've again resumed with the NOTBROKEN violations (swapping "United States of America" for "United States"). I don't think it's too much to ask that you completely refrain from this kind of edit until we've finished discussing our plans for how to present our argument at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. You are violating the guidelines when you make this kind of edit and you've been asked to stop over and over again. Please help me come up with some exceptions that we can present for consensus instead of just continuing to stubbornly violate the guidelines and hope that I'll go away. I won't. I really want to work with you here, but if I see it again I will bring it to AN/I. -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, I didnt do anything wrong with United States. It's the common name of the country and what everyone writes (hell, even the article uses the name) and I know that did NOT violate any rule. Frankly, saying that deleting two words so it uses the common name is wrong, is like saying you can't edit a article to fix a spelling mistake. Might as well freeze all editing. Did I somehow violate it in another article when I changed Major League Baseball to Major League Baseball ? Anyways, i've been busy. But im free now.  TJ   Spyke   15:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Repairing broken wikilinks is not a violation of NOTBROKEN, but changing from one synonymous term (like the official name of a country) to another synonymous term (like the common name for a country) for the same target article is definitely a violation of NOTBROKEN. I don't mean this to sound rude, but you have to accept the fact that your judgment on whether or not a redirect "fix" violates NOTBROKEN is clearly quite poor. I strongly urge you to avoid making those kinds of edits even if you are certain that you're in the right because you are obviously unable to differentiate between violations and non-violations. Anyway I'm glad to hear that you're free now and I'm eager to get to work on the exceptions. -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding Dragon Warrior/Quest, it is not true that Quest was common in European countries. The first game in the series even RELEASED in Europe was Dragon Warrior Monsters in 1999 (where it used "Warrior"), they didnt get another one until Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King (which was when Square Enix FIRST used the "Quest" name outside of Japan). So considering that for almost 20 years the only English name of the series was "Warrior", it makes sense for the ones released with the Warrior name to use that. As for exceptions to NOTBROKEN:


 * I think fixing spelling mistakes and capitalization (i.e. Playstation to PlayStation) are good ones that are not controversial.
 * Hmmm, maybe switching some to the most common name can be OK (though within the right context)
 * Sometimes things will never get an article. I.e. a character who appeared once on a TV show 20 years ago will probably never get an article as they are not notable enough, but they might have an entry in a article about characters from that show. Is it a problem to change a link to that section specifically?
 * If a product is released under one name in most of the world, shouldn't it be OK to write that as the name? I.e. NES/Famicom. Famicom is the Japanese name of the system, but they are still the same system. Doesn't it make sense to change the links to NES? It's especially ridiculous when some articles say a game was released on the NES and Famicom (implying they are different).

Maybe others, but these are off the top of my head.  TJ   Spyke   15:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All PAL versions of the main series are called "Dragon Quest," but that's quite beside the point. The point is that these are synonymous terms and "fixing" them to avoid the redirect violates NOTBROKEN point #6. Unless there has been a discussion leading to a consistency-based preference for one term over the other, the term used by the first European spinoff title has no significance whatsoever and the redirect should not be altered. But this brings me to the question I asked last week:
 * Is switching "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" (or "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System", etc.) something that you have been doing in the interest of inter-article consistency? Is that the core of your argument? Or do you simply reject NOTBROKEN's point #6 (i.e. the argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics)?
 * And as long as I'm re-asking questions from last week,...
 * Could you explain your thought process behind changing "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games"? These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN point #4 (described in last week's comment above). Do you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions?
 * Regarding your exceptions, I agree strongly with the first one (spelling & capitalization). That's definitely going into the final draft of our proposal. I also think that the alteration of redirect terms to reflect a consistent consensus-based terminology (if indeed such a consensus exists) is a good idea. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
 * The other three points you bring up are kind of confusing for me. I don't really think you've presented any argument for making them into exceptions. Basically your reasoning appears to boil down to "Let's make these into exceptions, because why not?" The problem with this is that NOTBROKEN is a consensus-based guideline. Nobody would take us seriously if we proposed exceptions to it without actually giving concrete reasons why the exceptions are needed. The answer to your "is it a problem?" and "shouldn't it be OK?" questions above would be answered by the editors at NOTBROKEN with "Yes it's a problem (see point #4), and no it's not OK (see point #6)." These are consensus-based views on those exact topics.
 * To create an exception we can't just ignore consensus. We have to find a reason that the consensus view is too broad and that in narrowly definable situations the general rules at NOTBROKEN should be excepted. Then we have to convince others based on solid reasoning. If there is no way to distinguish the area to which the rule applies from the area to which the exception applies then we have to propose knocking down part of the rules which will be a much more difficult task and will absolutely require ironclad arguments, not just "why not?" In addition to answering the questions I bulleted above, could you please try to think of specific reasons why we need (or how it would be helpful to have) an exception for common names, obscure aspects, and synonymous terms? -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again TJ Spyke. What is your schedule like? Are you going to have any free time in the next few weeks? I'd like to move forward with our plans regarding the development of a few more exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN. It's been nearly a month since we began talking about this, but if we're to move this forward we have to actually discuss it. I don't want to do this without your help. In fact most of my interest in getting this done is to help editors like you who seem to have problems with the current guidelines. Is this something that still interests you? When will you be available to answer questions like those I asked in the last post? Please don't just leave me hanging here. -Thibbs (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well while I'm waiting for word from you on some kind of timeframe I noticed that you'd performed a few more redirect "fixes" since I last asked you to stop and I can report that I agree most of them. But edits like this and this suggest further exceptions to the rule. From the first of those two links (relinking to the actual page name on a dab page), I think this brings up a good point - that we should add an exception for disambiguation pages per WP:PIPING. The second one (changing a link to a plural term into a link to the singular) looks like just another "fix" for reasons of your own. Can you explain that change? Was there a reason you decided to again violate NOTBROKEN in that case? For all I know there may be policy/guideline supporting that edit but if so then this suggests another good exception. -Thibbs (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Ashley Fliehr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Providence High School


 * List of acronyms: W (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to WWF


 * Takeshi's Castle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Fuji

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Question about cleanup process
Hi TJ Spyke, I noticed that you've been cleaning up numerous articles today and I was curious how you were doing it. Is it all by hand or do you use a program? Specifically I'm curious how you check the wikilinks. Are you testing each one individually or is there a tool you have that highlights all redirects? -Thibbs (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I use WPCleaner to check articles, but there are some edits that can't be made with it (like spellchecking, typos, etc.), so I then manually edit it after (essentially, I copy and paste the results from WPCleaner, then continue editing the article).  TJ   Spyke   21:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. Is WPCleaner something that you can download from a Wikimedia site/affiliate or should I just Google it if I want to find it? -Thibbs (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here you go: WPCleaner.  TJ   Spyke   21:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm sorry to say I've reverted your edit at the Derby Stallion article yet again. The links that you are "fixing" are indeed redirect links. And per WP:NOTBROKEN, redirects within an article are not supposed to be changed so that they point to the target article instead. There are a number of reasons why this is harmful to Wikipedia and they're clearly spelled out under WP:NOTBROKEN. This has become a problem in the past with users accidentally abusing the Navigation popup tool to "fix" redirects as you're doing and the result was this page. This is actually the reason I was asking above what tool you were using. I was curious to see what other tools were being subjected to this kind of abuse. The WPCleaner talk page is filled with comments regarding users mistakenly "fixing" redirects (e.g. 1, 2, 3, and many more in the archives from 2008 and earlier). The thing is... I've already explained all of this to you in the past (see e.g. 1 and 2). And I know you are aware of this issue because you have already received a final warning on the subject. So I really don't see how what you are doing could be considered good faith editing. Your editing is contrary to the guidelines and you have been repeatedly told this and warned to stop. Normally I'd suggest trying to get the guidelines changed before carrying on in this way, but in this case from your block log it's clear to me that you've consciously decided to change matters unilaterally rather than by seeking consensus. For this reason I've requested administrative action. -Thibbs (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, you did not read NOTBROKEN correctly at all. I have not been making the kinds of edits that got me into trouble before, I have been careful to only makes ones that follow the guidelines. I am sorry that you are not a good editor and dont like others making articles better, but stop vandalizing pages by reverting good edits. I am hesitant to give you a warning, but I will. Frankly, its people like you who are driving editors away from Wikipedia and preventing so many articles from being improved. Go away.  TJ   Spyke   00:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't react like this to new editors. I react this way to editors who have been editing here for 7-odd years and are among the top 400 most prolific editors and who have received a shocking number of warnings and frank blocks including an indef block. You obviously know better than to persist in these games but yet you continue. AGF only extends so far. You clearly have no regard for community guidelines founded on consensus and are only interested in your own editorial decisions. I'm sorry that you decided to take this route. It was a very poor decision on your part. -Thibbs (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, to Derby Stallion (series) is full of unhelpful changes as per WP:NOTBROKEN.  Amalthea  09:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, I see no unhelpful edits. I will not pretend 100% of my edits have been helpful, but ask any average editor and that change is nothing but helpful. And frankly, you shouldnt drive away good editors since fewer and fewer people are editing Wikipedia now. I also notice that I only get hounded when I mass edit articles, I dont get harassed when I only edit a few articles a day.  TJ   Spyke   20:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "It is likewise unhelpful to edit visible links for no reason other than to avoid redirects." Amalthea  22:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A great majority of your NOTBROKEN violations are harmful actually. Try actually reading the guideline. You might be surprised to discover that there are at least six explicitly listed reasons not to change (bypass) redirects. One obvious one is that you are whitewashing usage stats - an activity that is at best completely pointless. But more often it's not completely harmless. It's directly harmful because it obscures the need for new articles on topics that aren't covered and it hides more appropriate and thus needed page-moves.
 * How on earth could these violations be "nothing but helpful"? I can't think of a single way that they help. Correcting incorrect titles or misspelled words or redirect like that is one thing, but how does it help anybody if you change horse breaking to horse training (to take a random example from the Derby Stallion article)? It hides the fact that there is no article on horse breaking - a clearly distinct concept from horse training and it reduces the likelihood that anyone will write an article on horse breaking. In what world does that help in any way whatsoever? At very best it's a completely pointless time-wasting activity. And it's one that you have been warned over and over and over again to stop. Does the consensus of your fellow editor on this issue really matter so little to you that you are unwilling to put an end to this distinctly non-helpful activity? Does the possibility that you may get blocked for a 24th (!!!) time mean nothing to you? I hope I'm not overreacting here, but I find your conduct in this one trivial editorial area to be truly incomprehensible. -Thibbs (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been careful to avoid those types of link changes. How is changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3" doing any harm? There is never gonna be a "Playstation 3" article, ever. And in that Derby Stallion article, changing "PlayStation" to "PlayStation (console)" IS directly helpful and needed because the latter refers to the game system called PlayStation and the former refers to the general product line. Or changing links to "Famicom" to be "Nintendo Entertainment System|Famicom", there will never be a separate Famicom article because it's just the Japanese name of the NES. Sometimes I make mistakes (like with the horse breaking one), but I see it as vandalism when editors revert the whole edit instead of just specific link changes they see as bad.  TJ   Spyke   15:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Look I recognize that apart from this one issue (and I guess the 3RR stuff from your past that I think you've mostly stopped now) you are a good editor. And I also recognize that you're human and that you may make mistakes. But seeing as how you've made so many many mistakes in this one particular area I would seriously recommend avoiding it altogether. Just skimming the cleanups you've performed since you were last unblocked, it's apparent that the large majority of the redirect "fixes" you performed were potentially harmful. And a tiny minority of them are helpful in any way.
 * Is there a reason you feel compelled to change the redirects? I assume it's not just to boost your edit count, right? But is it just because it looks ugly on WPCleaner? Or do you really think that this is somehow helpful? If you do think it is helpful then have you considered making the case to change the guidelines at WP:NOTBROKEN? Because there are only 2 listed exceptions to that guideline currently. I wouldn't say that this is a complete list of all good exceptions, though. Your example of changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3", for instance, seems to me to be correcting a misspelling (or really a mis-capitalization). And I think that this is helpful and that it should be listed as an exception to WP:NOTBROKEN.
 * Why don't you and I try to come up with some exceptions that we could propose to the community together to improve the guidelines so that you're not constantly violating them? If you could come up with a reason why changing "video arcade" to "amusement arcade" or how changing "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System" or how changing "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" helps in any way then you could certainly make that suggestion as well. This would be a much much better way of approaching the problem than just ignoring everyone's warnings and getting banned over and over, don't you think? I'd be willing to help draft some proposed changes if you're willing to engage with me and explain why you feel compelled to violate this guideline. -Thibbs (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me (and withe something like the Dragon Quest, it's because the series name in English was Dragon Warrior before the the Dragon Quest VIII. Amusement arcade and video arcade are essentially interchangeable terms like "pop" and "soda". As for Famicom, aren't we supposed to use English names of products if that is the best known name? Famicom is just the Japanese name of the NES, so I would think other WP policies supported changing them to NES). I've never bothered trying to have NOTBROKEN changed because I know from experience how hard it can be to have policies on Wikipedia changed. Maybe later today or something we can start working on this together to propose changes that seem like common sense to most people.  TJ   Spyke   16:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm encouraged by your attitude. I think we should discuss this thoroughly between us here before proposing anything so that we're clear in our arguments. It's OK if we disagree too, since we can propose changes individually to be accepted piecemeal rather than only as a single package. Anyway here are my thoughts on what you've said just above:
 * Like the term "video arcade", the other two are also examples of synonymous terms: Dragon Warrior is the North American term whereas the English term is actually Dragon Quest (the same is true for all European countries and Japan actually); Famicom is the original Japanese name for the NES. According to NOTBROKEN (point 6), the use of a synonymous redirect term provides useful information relating to usage of the term which can be considered as evidence for renaming the article. By systematically changing these links to the current non-redirect title, you are manipulating the usage statistics. As an example: it might be that the term "Dragon Quest" is better known than "Dragon Warrior", but because you'd have changed all of the "Dragon Quest" redirects into "Dragon Warrior," you would have eradicated this information and we would get a false impression that "Dragon Warrior" was the most commonly used term when in reality it was only the most commonly used because the statistics had been manipulated. If you don't like that example, try imagining the reverse. Imagine someone who called the game "Dragon Quest" trying to make the case that the article should be renamed. So first he would change all the links to redirects and then point to the incoming links as evidence that everyone calls it Dragon Quest. You can see how that would be a problem, right? I think what NOTBROKEN is saying is that it's safest if we rely on the real usage statistics by refraining from changing synonymous terms. They are synonyms, after all, so the meaning is identical, right?
 * But I think you might have a point if your central concern was consistency. There have been large discussions in the past regarding whether or not Wikipedia should preferentially use the term "Sega Genesis" or "Master Drive" for example. I'm sure the same could exist for terms from popular consumer products like "Famicom/NES" or "Dragon Quest/Warrior" as well. If there has been a community discussion where one term was decided as the preferred term then I think you could make the case that perhaps it would be a good idea to use a single term in the interest of consistency. Does that sound like it might be the core of your argument for these words? Or do you instead find a problem with NOTBROKEN's argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics?
 * Another redirect dodge I was hoping you could explain is when you changed "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games". These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN's argument that "Shortcuts or redirects to sections of articles ... should never be bypassed, as the section headings on the page may change over time [and] Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links" (point 4; emphasis and ellipses added). So you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions? -Thibbs (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi TJ Spyke. Just checking in again. What's happening now? Why has this conversation stalled? Have you had a chance to read what I just wrote above? I noticed that you've again resumed with the NOTBROKEN violations (swapping "United States of America" for "United States"). I don't think it's too much to ask that you completely refrain from this kind of edit until we've finished discussing our plans for how to present our argument at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. You are violating the guidelines when you make this kind of edit and you've been asked to stop over and over again. Please help me come up with some exceptions that we can present for consensus instead of just continuing to stubbornly violate the guidelines and hope that I'll go away. I won't. I really want to work with you here, but if I see it again I will bring it to AN/I. -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, I didnt do anything wrong with United States. It's the common name of the country and what everyone writes (hell, even the article uses the name) and I know that did NOT violate any rule. Frankly, saying that deleting two words so it uses the common name is wrong, is like saying you can't edit a article to fix a spelling mistake. Might as well freeze all editing. Did I somehow violate it in another article when I changed Major League Baseball to Major League Baseball ? Anyways, i've been busy. But im free now.  TJ   Spyke   15:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Repairing broken wikilinks is not a violation of NOTBROKEN, but changing from one synonymous term (like the official name of a country) to another synonymous term (like the common name for a country) for the same target article is definitely a violation of NOTBROKEN. I don't mean this to sound rude, but you have to accept the fact that your judgment on whether or not a redirect "fix" violates NOTBROKEN is clearly quite poor. I strongly urge you to avoid making those kinds of edits even if you are certain that you're in the right because you are obviously unable to differentiate between violations and non-violations. Anyway I'm glad to hear that you're free now and I'm eager to get to work on the exceptions. -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding Dragon Warrior/Quest, it is not true that Quest was common in European countries. The first game in the series even RELEASED in Europe was Dragon Warrior Monsters in 1999 (where it used "Warrior"), they didnt get another one until Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King (which was when Square Enix FIRST used the "Quest" name outside of Japan). So considering that for almost 20 years the only English name of the series was "Warrior", it makes sense for the ones released with the Warrior name to use that. As for exceptions to NOTBROKEN:


 * I think fixing spelling mistakes and capitalization (i.e. Playstation to PlayStation) are good ones that are not controversial.
 * Hmmm, maybe switching some to the most common name can be OK (though within the right context)
 * Sometimes things will never get an article. I.e. a character who appeared once on a TV show 20 years ago will probably never get an article as they are not notable enough, but they might have an entry in a article about characters from that show. Is it a problem to change a link to that section specifically?
 * If a product is released under one name in most of the world, shouldn't it be OK to write that as the name? I.e. NES/Famicom. Famicom is the Japanese name of the system, but they are still the same system. Doesn't it make sense to change the links to NES? It's especially ridiculous when some articles say a game was released on the NES and Famicom (implying they are different).

Maybe others, but these are off the top of my head.  TJ   Spyke   15:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All PAL versions of the main series are called "Dragon Quest," but that's quite beside the point. The point is that these are synonymous terms and "fixing" them to avoid the redirect violates NOTBROKEN point #6. Unless there has been a discussion leading to a consistency-based preference for one term over the other, the term used by the first European spinoff title has no significance whatsoever and the redirect should not be altered. But this brings me to the question I asked last week:
 * Is switching "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" (or "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System", etc.) something that you have been doing in the interest of inter-article consistency? Is that the core of your argument? Or do you simply reject NOTBROKEN's point #6 (i.e. the argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics)?
 * And as long as I'm re-asking questions from last week,...
 * Could you explain your thought process behind changing "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games"? These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN point #4 (described in last week's comment above). Do you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions?
 * Regarding your exceptions, I agree strongly with the first one (spelling & capitalization). That's definitely going into the final draft of our proposal. I also think that the alteration of redirect terms to reflect a consistent consensus-based terminology (if indeed such a consensus exists) is a good idea. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
 * The other three points you bring up are kind of confusing for me. I don't really think you've presented any argument for making them into exceptions. Basically your reasoning appears to boil down to "Let's make these into exceptions, because why not?" The problem with this is that NOTBROKEN is a consensus-based guideline. Nobody would take us seriously if we proposed exceptions to it without actually giving concrete reasons why the exceptions are needed. The answer to your "is it a problem?" and "shouldn't it be OK?" questions above would be answered by the editors at NOTBROKEN with "Yes it's a problem (see point #4), and no it's not OK (see point #6)." These are consensus-based views on those exact topics.
 * To create an exception we can't just ignore consensus. We have to find a reason that the consensus view is too broad and that in narrowly definable situations the general rules at NOTBROKEN should be excepted. Then we have to convince others based on solid reasoning. If there is no way to distinguish the area to which the rule applies from the area to which the exception applies then we have to propose knocking down part of the rules which will be a much more difficult task and will absolutely require ironclad arguments, not just "why not?" In addition to answering the questions I bulleted above, could you please try to think of specific reasons why we need (or how it would be helpful to have) an exception for common names, obscure aspects, and synonymous terms? -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again TJ Spyke. What is your schedule like? Are you going to have any free time in the next few weeks? I'd like to move forward with our plans regarding the development of a few more exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN. It's been nearly a month since we began talking about this, but if we're to move this forward we have to actually discuss it. I don't want to do this without your help. In fact most of my interest in getting this done is to help editors like you who seem to have problems with the current guidelines. Is this something that still interests you? When will you be available to answer questions like those I asked in the last post? Please don't just leave me hanging here. -Thibbs (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well while I'm waiting for word from you on some kind of timeframe I noticed that you'd performed a few more redirect "fixes" since I last asked you to stop and I can report that I agree most of them. But edits like this and this suggest further exceptions to the rule. From the first of those two links (relinking to the actual page name on a dab page), I think this brings up a good point - that we should add an exception for disambiguation pages per WP:PIPING. The second one (changing a link to a plural term into a link to the singular) looks like just another "fix" for reasons of your own. Can you explain that change? Was there a reason you decided to again violate NOTBROKEN in that case? For all I know there may be policy/guideline supporting that edit but if so then this suggests another good exception. -Thibbs (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Ashley Fliehr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Providence High School


 * List of acronyms: W (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to WWF


 * Takeshi's Castle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Fuji

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Question about cleanup process
Hi TJ Spyke, I noticed that you've been cleaning up numerous articles today and I was curious how you were doing it. Is it all by hand or do you use a program? Specifically I'm curious how you check the wikilinks. Are you testing each one individually or is there a tool you have that highlights all redirects? -Thibbs (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I use WPCleaner to check articles, but there are some edits that can't be made with it (like spellchecking, typos, etc.), so I then manually edit it after (essentially, I copy and paste the results from WPCleaner, then continue editing the article).  TJ   Spyke   21:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. Is WPCleaner something that you can download from a Wikimedia site/affiliate or should I just Google it if I want to find it? -Thibbs (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here you go: WPCleaner.  TJ   Spyke   21:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm sorry to say I've reverted your edit at the Derby Stallion article yet again. The links that you are "fixing" are indeed redirect links. And per WP:NOTBROKEN, redirects within an article are not supposed to be changed so that they point to the target article instead. There are a number of reasons why this is harmful to Wikipedia and they're clearly spelled out under WP:NOTBROKEN. This has become a problem in the past with users accidentally abusing the Navigation popup tool to "fix" redirects as you're doing and the result was this page. This is actually the reason I was asking above what tool you were using. I was curious to see what other tools were being subjected to this kind of abuse. The WPCleaner talk page is filled with comments regarding users mistakenly "fixing" redirects (e.g. 1, 2, 3, and many more in the archives from 2008 and earlier). The thing is... I've already explained all of this to you in the past (see e.g. 1 and 2). And I know you are aware of this issue because you have already received a final warning on the subject. So I really don't see how what you are doing could be considered good faith editing. Your editing is contrary to the guidelines and you have been repeatedly told this and warned to stop. Normally I'd suggest trying to get the guidelines changed before carrying on in this way, but in this case from your block log it's clear to me that you've consciously decided to change matters unilaterally rather than by seeking consensus. For this reason I've requested administrative action. -Thibbs (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, you did not read NOTBROKEN correctly at all. I have not been making the kinds of edits that got me into trouble before, I have been careful to only makes ones that follow the guidelines. I am sorry that you are not a good editor and dont like others making articles better, but stop vandalizing pages by reverting good edits. I am hesitant to give you a warning, but I will. Frankly, its people like you who are driving editors away from Wikipedia and preventing so many articles from being improved. Go away.  TJ   Spyke   00:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't react like this to new editors. I react this way to editors who have been editing here for 7-odd years and are among the top 400 most prolific editors and who have received a shocking number of warnings and frank blocks including an indef block. You obviously know better than to persist in these games but yet you continue. AGF only extends so far. You clearly have no regard for community guidelines founded on consensus and are only interested in your own editorial decisions. I'm sorry that you decided to take this route. It was a very poor decision on your part. -Thibbs (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, to Derby Stallion (series) is full of unhelpful changes as per WP:NOTBROKEN.  Amalthea  09:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, I see no unhelpful edits. I will not pretend 100% of my edits have been helpful, but ask any average editor and that change is nothing but helpful. And frankly, you shouldnt drive away good editors since fewer and fewer people are editing Wikipedia now. I also notice that I only get hounded when I mass edit articles, I dont get harassed when I only edit a few articles a day.  TJ   Spyke   20:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "It is likewise unhelpful to edit visible links for no reason other than to avoid redirects." Amalthea  22:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A great majority of your NOTBROKEN violations are harmful actually. Try actually reading the guideline. You might be surprised to discover that there are at least six explicitly listed reasons not to change (bypass) redirects. One obvious one is that you are whitewashing usage stats - an activity that is at best completely pointless. But more often it's not completely harmless. It's directly harmful because it obscures the need for new articles on topics that aren't covered and it hides more appropriate and thus needed page-moves.
 * How on earth could these violations be "nothing but helpful"? I can't think of a single way that they help. Correcting incorrect titles or misspelled words or redirect like that is one thing, but how does it help anybody if you change horse breaking to horse training (to take a random example from the Derby Stallion article)? It hides the fact that there is no article on horse breaking - a clearly distinct concept from horse training and it reduces the likelihood that anyone will write an article on horse breaking. In what world does that help in any way whatsoever? At very best it's a completely pointless time-wasting activity. And it's one that you have been warned over and over and over again to stop. Does the consensus of your fellow editor on this issue really matter so little to you that you are unwilling to put an end to this distinctly non-helpful activity? Does the possibility that you may get blocked for a 24th (!!!) time mean nothing to you? I hope I'm not overreacting here, but I find your conduct in this one trivial editorial area to be truly incomprehensible. -Thibbs (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been careful to avoid those types of link changes. How is changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3" doing any harm? There is never gonna be a "Playstation 3" article, ever. And in that Derby Stallion article, changing "PlayStation" to "PlayStation (console)" IS directly helpful and needed because the latter refers to the game system called PlayStation and the former refers to the general product line. Or changing links to "Famicom" to be "Nintendo Entertainment System|Famicom", there will never be a separate Famicom article because it's just the Japanese name of the NES. Sometimes I make mistakes (like with the horse breaking one), but I see it as vandalism when editors revert the whole edit instead of just specific link changes they see as bad.  TJ   Spyke   15:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Look I recognize that apart from this one issue (and I guess the 3RR stuff from your past that I think you've mostly stopped now) you are a good editor. And I also recognize that you're human and that you may make mistakes. But seeing as how you've made so many many mistakes in this one particular area I would seriously recommend avoiding it altogether. Just skimming the cleanups you've performed since you were last unblocked, it's apparent that the large majority of the redirect "fixes" you performed were potentially harmful. And a tiny minority of them are helpful in any way.
 * Is there a reason you feel compelled to change the redirects? I assume it's not just to boost your edit count, right? But is it just because it looks ugly on WPCleaner? Or do you really think that this is somehow helpful? If you do think it is helpful then have you considered making the case to change the guidelines at WP:NOTBROKEN? Because there are only 2 listed exceptions to that guideline currently. I wouldn't say that this is a complete list of all good exceptions, though. Your example of changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3", for instance, seems to me to be correcting a misspelling (or really a mis-capitalization). And I think that this is helpful and that it should be listed as an exception to WP:NOTBROKEN.
 * Why don't you and I try to come up with some exceptions that we could propose to the community together to improve the guidelines so that you're not constantly violating them? If you could come up with a reason why changing "video arcade" to "amusement arcade" or how changing "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System" or how changing "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" helps in any way then you could certainly make that suggestion as well. This would be a much much better way of approaching the problem than just ignoring everyone's warnings and getting banned over and over, don't you think? I'd be willing to help draft some proposed changes if you're willing to engage with me and explain why you feel compelled to violate this guideline. -Thibbs (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me (and withe something like the Dragon Quest, it's because the series name in English was Dragon Warrior before the the Dragon Quest VIII. Amusement arcade and video arcade are essentially interchangeable terms like "pop" and "soda". As for Famicom, aren't we supposed to use English names of products if that is the best known name? Famicom is just the Japanese name of the NES, so I would think other WP policies supported changing them to NES). I've never bothered trying to have NOTBROKEN changed because I know from experience how hard it can be to have policies on Wikipedia changed. Maybe later today or something we can start working on this together to propose changes that seem like common sense to most people.  TJ   Spyke   16:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm encouraged by your attitude. I think we should discuss this thoroughly between us here before proposing anything so that we're clear in our arguments. It's OK if we disagree too, since we can propose changes individually to be accepted piecemeal rather than only as a single package. Anyway here are my thoughts on what you've said just above:
 * Like the term "video arcade", the other two are also examples of synonymous terms: Dragon Warrior is the North American term whereas the English term is actually Dragon Quest (the same is true for all European countries and Japan actually); Famicom is the original Japanese name for the NES. According to NOTBROKEN (point 6), the use of a synonymous redirect term provides useful information relating to usage of the term which can be considered as evidence for renaming the article. By systematically changing these links to the current non-redirect title, you are manipulating the usage statistics. As an example: it might be that the term "Dragon Quest" is better known than "Dragon Warrior", but because you'd have changed all of the "Dragon Quest" redirects into "Dragon Warrior," you would have eradicated this information and we would get a false impression that "Dragon Warrior" was the most commonly used term when in reality it was only the most commonly used because the statistics had been manipulated. If you don't like that example, try imagining the reverse. Imagine someone who called the game "Dragon Quest" trying to make the case that the article should be renamed. So first he would change all the links to redirects and then point to the incoming links as evidence that everyone calls it Dragon Quest. You can see how that would be a problem, right? I think what NOTBROKEN is saying is that it's safest if we rely on the real usage statistics by refraining from changing synonymous terms. They are synonyms, after all, so the meaning is identical, right?
 * But I think you might have a point if your central concern was consistency. There have been large discussions in the past regarding whether or not Wikipedia should preferentially use the term "Sega Genesis" or "Master Drive" for example. I'm sure the same could exist for terms from popular consumer products like "Famicom/NES" or "Dragon Quest/Warrior" as well. If there has been a community discussion where one term was decided as the preferred term then I think you could make the case that perhaps it would be a good idea to use a single term in the interest of consistency. Does that sound like it might be the core of your argument for these words? Or do you instead find a problem with NOTBROKEN's argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics?
 * Another redirect dodge I was hoping you could explain is when you changed "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games". These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN's argument that "Shortcuts or redirects to sections of articles ... should never be bypassed, as the section headings on the page may change over time [and] Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links" (point 4; emphasis and ellipses added). So you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions? -Thibbs (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi TJ Spyke. Just checking in again. What's happening now? Why has this conversation stalled? Have you had a chance to read what I just wrote above? I noticed that you've again resumed with the NOTBROKEN violations (swapping "United States of America" for "United States"). I don't think it's too much to ask that you completely refrain from this kind of edit until we've finished discussing our plans for how to present our argument at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. You are violating the guidelines when you make this kind of edit and you've been asked to stop over and over again. Please help me come up with some exceptions that we can present for consensus instead of just continuing to stubbornly violate the guidelines and hope that I'll go away. I won't. I really want to work with you here, but if I see it again I will bring it to AN/I. -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, I didnt do anything wrong with United States. It's the common name of the country and what everyone writes (hell, even the article uses the name) and I know that did NOT violate any rule. Frankly, saying that deleting two words so it uses the common name is wrong, is like saying you can't edit a article to fix a spelling mistake. Might as well freeze all editing. Did I somehow violate it in another article when I changed Major League Baseball to Major League Baseball ? Anyways, i've been busy. But im free now.  TJ   Spyke   15:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Repairing broken wikilinks is not a violation of NOTBROKEN, but changing from one synonymous term (like the official name of a country) to another synonymous term (like the common name for a country) for the same target article is definitely a violation of NOTBROKEN. I don't mean this to sound rude, but you have to accept the fact that your judgment on whether or not a redirect "fix" violates NOTBROKEN is clearly quite poor. I strongly urge you to avoid making those kinds of edits even if you are certain that you're in the right because you are obviously unable to differentiate between violations and non-violations. Anyway I'm glad to hear that you're free now and I'm eager to get to work on the exceptions. -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding Dragon Warrior/Quest, it is not true that Quest was common in European countries. The first game in the series even RELEASED in Europe was Dragon Warrior Monsters in 1999 (where it used "Warrior"), they didnt get another one until Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King (which was when Square Enix FIRST used the "Quest" name outside of Japan). So considering that for almost 20 years the only English name of the series was "Warrior", it makes sense for the ones released with the Warrior name to use that. As for exceptions to NOTBROKEN:


 * I think fixing spelling mistakes and capitalization (i.e. Playstation to PlayStation) are good ones that are not controversial.
 * Hmmm, maybe switching some to the most common name can be OK (though within the right context)
 * Sometimes things will never get an article. I.e. a character who appeared once on a TV show 20 years ago will probably never get an article as they are not notable enough, but they might have an entry in a article about characters from that show. Is it a problem to change a link to that section specifically?
 * If a product is released under one name in most of the world, shouldn't it be OK to write that as the name? I.e. NES/Famicom. Famicom is the Japanese name of the system, but they are still the same system. Doesn't it make sense to change the links to NES? It's especially ridiculous when some articles say a game was released on the NES and Famicom (implying they are different).

Maybe others, but these are off the top of my head.  TJ   Spyke   15:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All PAL versions of the main series are called "Dragon Quest," but that's quite beside the point. The point is that these are synonymous terms and "fixing" them to avoid the redirect violates NOTBROKEN point #6. Unless there has been a discussion leading to a consistency-based preference for one term over the other, the term used by the first European spinoff title has no significance whatsoever and the redirect should not be altered. But this brings me to the question I asked last week:
 * Is switching "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" (or "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System", etc.) something that you have been doing in the interest of inter-article consistency? Is that the core of your argument? Or do you simply reject NOTBROKEN's point #6 (i.e. the argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics)?
 * And as long as I'm re-asking questions from last week,...
 * Could you explain your thought process behind changing "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games"? These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN point #4 (described in last week's comment above). Do you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions?
 * Regarding your exceptions, I agree strongly with the first one (spelling & capitalization). That's definitely going into the final draft of our proposal. I also think that the alteration of redirect terms to reflect a consistent consensus-based terminology (if indeed such a consensus exists) is a good idea. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
 * The other three points you bring up are kind of confusing for me. I don't really think you've presented any argument for making them into exceptions. Basically your reasoning appears to boil down to "Let's make these into exceptions, because why not?" The problem with this is that NOTBROKEN is a consensus-based guideline. Nobody would take us seriously if we proposed exceptions to it without actually giving concrete reasons why the exceptions are needed. The answer to your "is it a problem?" and "shouldn't it be OK?" questions above would be answered by the editors at NOTBROKEN with "Yes it's a problem (see point #4), and no it's not OK (see point #6)." These are consensus-based views on those exact topics.
 * To create an exception we can't just ignore consensus. We have to find a reason that the consensus view is too broad and that in narrowly definable situations the general rules at NOTBROKEN should be excepted. Then we have to convince others based on solid reasoning. If there is no way to distinguish the area to which the rule applies from the area to which the exception applies then we have to propose knocking down part of the rules which will be a much more difficult task and will absolutely require ironclad arguments, not just "why not?" In addition to answering the questions I bulleted above, could you please try to think of specific reasons why we need (or how it would be helpful to have) an exception for common names, obscure aspects, and synonymous terms? -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again TJ Spyke. What is your schedule like? Are you going to have any free time in the next few weeks? I'd like to move forward with our plans regarding the development of a few more exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN. It's been nearly a month since we began talking about this, but if we're to move this forward we have to actually discuss it. I don't want to do this without your help. In fact most of my interest in getting this done is to help editors like you who seem to have problems with the current guidelines. Is this something that still interests you? When will you be available to answer questions like those I asked in the last post? Please don't just leave me hanging here. -Thibbs (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well while I'm waiting for word from you on some kind of timeframe I noticed that you'd performed a few more redirect "fixes" since I last asked you to stop and I can report that I agree most of them. But edits like this and this suggest further exceptions to the rule. From the first of those two links (relinking to the actual page name on a dab page), I think this brings up a good point - that we should add an exception for disambiguation pages per WP:PIPING. The second one (changing a link to a plural term into a link to the singular) looks like just another "fix" for reasons of your own. Can you explain that change? Was there a reason you decided to again violate NOTBROKEN in that case? For all I know there may be policy/guideline supporting that edit but if so then this suggests another good exception. -Thibbs (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Ashley Fliehr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Providence High School


 * List of acronyms: W (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to WWF


 * Takeshi's Castle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Fuji

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Question about cleanup process
Hi TJ Spyke, I noticed that you've been cleaning up numerous articles today and I was curious how you were doing it. Is it all by hand or do you use a program? Specifically I'm curious how you check the wikilinks. Are you testing each one individually or is there a tool you have that highlights all redirects? -Thibbs (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I use WPCleaner to check articles, but there are some edits that can't be made with it (like spellchecking, typos, etc.), so I then manually edit it after (essentially, I copy and paste the results from WPCleaner, then continue editing the article).  TJ   Spyke   21:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. Is WPCleaner something that you can download from a Wikimedia site/affiliate or should I just Google it if I want to find it? -Thibbs (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here you go: WPCleaner.  TJ   Spyke   21:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm sorry to say I've reverted your edit at the Derby Stallion article yet again. The links that you are "fixing" are indeed redirect links. And per WP:NOTBROKEN, redirects within an article are not supposed to be changed so that they point to the target article instead. There are a number of reasons why this is harmful to Wikipedia and they're clearly spelled out under WP:NOTBROKEN. This has become a problem in the past with users accidentally abusing the Navigation popup tool to "fix" redirects as you're doing and the result was this page. This is actually the reason I was asking above what tool you were using. I was curious to see what other tools were being subjected to this kind of abuse. The WPCleaner talk page is filled with comments regarding users mistakenly "fixing" redirects (e.g. 1, 2, 3, and many more in the archives from 2008 and earlier). The thing is... I've already explained all of this to you in the past (see e.g. 1 and 2). And I know you are aware of this issue because you have already received a final warning on the subject. So I really don't see how what you are doing could be considered good faith editing. Your editing is contrary to the guidelines and you have been repeatedly told this and warned to stop. Normally I'd suggest trying to get the guidelines changed before carrying on in this way, but in this case from your block log it's clear to me that you've consciously decided to change matters unilaterally rather than by seeking consensus. For this reason I've requested administrative action. -Thibbs (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, you did not read NOTBROKEN correctly at all. I have not been making the kinds of edits that got me into trouble before, I have been careful to only makes ones that follow the guidelines. I am sorry that you are not a good editor and dont like others making articles better, but stop vandalizing pages by reverting good edits. I am hesitant to give you a warning, but I will. Frankly, its people like you who are driving editors away from Wikipedia and preventing so many articles from being improved. Go away.  TJ   Spyke   00:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't react like this to new editors. I react this way to editors who have been editing here for 7-odd years and are among the top 400 most prolific editors and who have received a shocking number of warnings and frank blocks including an indef block. You obviously know better than to persist in these games but yet you continue. AGF only extends so far. You clearly have no regard for community guidelines founded on consensus and are only interested in your own editorial decisions. I'm sorry that you decided to take this route. It was a very poor decision on your part. -Thibbs (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, to Derby Stallion (series) is full of unhelpful changes as per WP:NOTBROKEN.  Amalthea  09:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, I see no unhelpful edits. I will not pretend 100% of my edits have been helpful, but ask any average editor and that change is nothing but helpful. And frankly, you shouldnt drive away good editors since fewer and fewer people are editing Wikipedia now. I also notice that I only get hounded when I mass edit articles, I dont get harassed when I only edit a few articles a day.  TJ   Spyke   20:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "It is likewise unhelpful to edit visible links for no reason other than to avoid redirects." Amalthea  22:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A great majority of your NOTBROKEN violations are harmful actually. Try actually reading the guideline. You might be surprised to discover that there are at least six explicitly listed reasons not to change (bypass) redirects. One obvious one is that you are whitewashing usage stats - an activity that is at best completely pointless. But more often it's not completely harmless. It's directly harmful because it obscures the need for new articles on topics that aren't covered and it hides more appropriate and thus needed page-moves.
 * How on earth could these violations be "nothing but helpful"? I can't think of a single way that they help. Correcting incorrect titles or misspelled words or redirect like that is one thing, but how does it help anybody if you change horse breaking to horse training (to take a random example from the Derby Stallion article)? It hides the fact that there is no article on horse breaking - a clearly distinct concept from horse training and it reduces the likelihood that anyone will write an article on horse breaking. In what world does that help in any way whatsoever? At very best it's a completely pointless time-wasting activity. And it's one that you have been warned over and over and over again to stop. Does the consensus of your fellow editor on this issue really matter so little to you that you are unwilling to put an end to this distinctly non-helpful activity? Does the possibility that you may get blocked for a 24th (!!!) time mean nothing to you? I hope I'm not overreacting here, but I find your conduct in this one trivial editorial area to be truly incomprehensible. -Thibbs (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been careful to avoid those types of link changes. How is changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3" doing any harm? There is never gonna be a "Playstation 3" article, ever. And in that Derby Stallion article, changing "PlayStation" to "PlayStation (console)" IS directly helpful and needed because the latter refers to the game system called PlayStation and the former refers to the general product line. Or changing links to "Famicom" to be "Nintendo Entertainment System|Famicom", there will never be a separate Famicom article because it's just the Japanese name of the NES. Sometimes I make mistakes (like with the horse breaking one), but I see it as vandalism when editors revert the whole edit instead of just specific link changes they see as bad.  TJ   Spyke   15:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Look I recognize that apart from this one issue (and I guess the 3RR stuff from your past that I think you've mostly stopped now) you are a good editor. And I also recognize that you're human and that you may make mistakes. But seeing as how you've made so many many mistakes in this one particular area I would seriously recommend avoiding it altogether. Just skimming the cleanups you've performed since you were last unblocked, it's apparent that the large majority of the redirect "fixes" you performed were potentially harmful. And a tiny minority of them are helpful in any way.
 * Is there a reason you feel compelled to change the redirects? I assume it's not just to boost your edit count, right? But is it just because it looks ugly on WPCleaner? Or do you really think that this is somehow helpful? If you do think it is helpful then have you considered making the case to change the guidelines at WP:NOTBROKEN? Because there are only 2 listed exceptions to that guideline currently. I wouldn't say that this is a complete list of all good exceptions, though. Your example of changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3", for instance, seems to me to be correcting a misspelling (or really a mis-capitalization). And I think that this is helpful and that it should be listed as an exception to WP:NOTBROKEN.
 * Why don't you and I try to come up with some exceptions that we could propose to the community together to improve the guidelines so that you're not constantly violating them? If you could come up with a reason why changing "video arcade" to "amusement arcade" or how changing "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System" or how changing "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" helps in any way then you could certainly make that suggestion as well. This would be a much much better way of approaching the problem than just ignoring everyone's warnings and getting banned over and over, don't you think? I'd be willing to help draft some proposed changes if you're willing to engage with me and explain why you feel compelled to violate this guideline. -Thibbs (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me (and withe something like the Dragon Quest, it's because the series name in English was Dragon Warrior before the the Dragon Quest VIII. Amusement arcade and video arcade are essentially interchangeable terms like "pop" and "soda". As for Famicom, aren't we supposed to use English names of products if that is the best known name? Famicom is just the Japanese name of the NES, so I would think other WP policies supported changing them to NES). I've never bothered trying to have NOTBROKEN changed because I know from experience how hard it can be to have policies on Wikipedia changed. Maybe later today or something we can start working on this together to propose changes that seem like common sense to most people.  TJ   Spyke   16:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm encouraged by your attitude. I think we should discuss this thoroughly between us here before proposing anything so that we're clear in our arguments. It's OK if we disagree too, since we can propose changes individually to be accepted piecemeal rather than only as a single package. Anyway here are my thoughts on what you've said just above:
 * Like the term "video arcade", the other two are also examples of synonymous terms: Dragon Warrior is the North American term whereas the English term is actually Dragon Quest (the same is true for all European countries and Japan actually); Famicom is the original Japanese name for the NES. According to NOTBROKEN (point 6), the use of a synonymous redirect term provides useful information relating to usage of the term which can be considered as evidence for renaming the article. By systematically changing these links to the current non-redirect title, you are manipulating the usage statistics. As an example: it might be that the term "Dragon Quest" is better known than "Dragon Warrior", but because you'd have changed all of the "Dragon Quest" redirects into "Dragon Warrior," you would have eradicated this information and we would get a false impression that "Dragon Warrior" was the most commonly used term when in reality it was only the most commonly used because the statistics had been manipulated. If you don't like that example, try imagining the reverse. Imagine someone who called the game "Dragon Quest" trying to make the case that the article should be renamed. So first he would change all the links to redirects and then point to the incoming links as evidence that everyone calls it Dragon Quest. You can see how that would be a problem, right? I think what NOTBROKEN is saying is that it's safest if we rely on the real usage statistics by refraining from changing synonymous terms. They are synonyms, after all, so the meaning is identical, right?
 * But I think you might have a point if your central concern was consistency. There have been large discussions in the past regarding whether or not Wikipedia should preferentially use the term "Sega Genesis" or "Master Drive" for example. I'm sure the same could exist for terms from popular consumer products like "Famicom/NES" or "Dragon Quest/Warrior" as well. If there has been a community discussion where one term was decided as the preferred term then I think you could make the case that perhaps it would be a good idea to use a single term in the interest of consistency. Does that sound like it might be the core of your argument for these words? Or do you instead find a problem with NOTBROKEN's argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics?
 * Another redirect dodge I was hoping you could explain is when you changed "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games". These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN's argument that "Shortcuts or redirects to sections of articles ... should never be bypassed, as the section headings on the page may change over time [and] Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links" (point 4; emphasis and ellipses added). So you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions? -Thibbs (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi TJ Spyke. Just checking in again. What's happening now? Why has this conversation stalled? Have you had a chance to read what I just wrote above? I noticed that you've again resumed with the NOTBROKEN violations (swapping "United States of America" for "United States"). I don't think it's too much to ask that you completely refrain from this kind of edit until we've finished discussing our plans for how to present our argument at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. You are violating the guidelines when you make this kind of edit and you've been asked to stop over and over again. Please help me come up with some exceptions that we can present for consensus instead of just continuing to stubbornly violate the guidelines and hope that I'll go away. I won't. I really want to work with you here, but if I see it again I will bring it to AN/I. -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, I didnt do anything wrong with United States. It's the common name of the country and what everyone writes (hell, even the article uses the name) and I know that did NOT violate any rule. Frankly, saying that deleting two words so it uses the common name is wrong, is like saying you can't edit a article to fix a spelling mistake. Might as well freeze all editing. Did I somehow violate it in another article when I changed Major League Baseball to Major League Baseball ? Anyways, i've been busy. But im free now.  TJ   Spyke   15:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Repairing broken wikilinks is not a violation of NOTBROKEN, but changing from one synonymous term (like the official name of a country) to another synonymous term (like the common name for a country) for the same target article is definitely a violation of NOTBROKEN. I don't mean this to sound rude, but you have to accept the fact that your judgment on whether or not a redirect "fix" violates NOTBROKEN is clearly quite poor. I strongly urge you to avoid making those kinds of edits even if you are certain that you're in the right because you are obviously unable to differentiate between violations and non-violations. Anyway I'm glad to hear that you're free now and I'm eager to get to work on the exceptions. -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding Dragon Warrior/Quest, it is not true that Quest was common in European countries. The first game in the series even RELEASED in Europe was Dragon Warrior Monsters in 1999 (where it used "Warrior"), they didnt get another one until Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King (which was when Square Enix FIRST used the "Quest" name outside of Japan). So considering that for almost 20 years the only English name of the series was "Warrior", it makes sense for the ones released with the Warrior name to use that. As for exceptions to NOTBROKEN:


 * I think fixing spelling mistakes and capitalization (i.e. Playstation to PlayStation) are good ones that are not controversial.
 * Hmmm, maybe switching some to the most common name can be OK (though within the right context)
 * Sometimes things will never get an article. I.e. a character who appeared once on a TV show 20 years ago will probably never get an article as they are not notable enough, but they might have an entry in a article about characters from that show. Is it a problem to change a link to that section specifically?
 * If a product is released under one name in most of the world, shouldn't it be OK to write that as the name? I.e. NES/Famicom. Famicom is the Japanese name of the system, but they are still the same system. Doesn't it make sense to change the links to NES? It's especially ridiculous when some articles say a game was released on the NES and Famicom (implying they are different).

Maybe others, but these are off the top of my head.  TJ   Spyke   15:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All PAL versions of the main series are called "Dragon Quest," but that's quite beside the point. The point is that these are synonymous terms and "fixing" them to avoid the redirect violates NOTBROKEN point #6. Unless there has been a discussion leading to a consistency-based preference for one term over the other, the term used by the first European spinoff title has no significance whatsoever and the redirect should not be altered. But this brings me to the question I asked last week:
 * Is switching "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" (or "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System", etc.) something that you have been doing in the interest of inter-article consistency? Is that the core of your argument? Or do you simply reject NOTBROKEN's point #6 (i.e. the argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics)?
 * And as long as I'm re-asking questions from last week,...
 * Could you explain your thought process behind changing "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games"? These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN point #4 (described in last week's comment above). Do you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions?
 * Regarding your exceptions, I agree strongly with the first one (spelling & capitalization). That's definitely going into the final draft of our proposal. I also think that the alteration of redirect terms to reflect a consistent consensus-based terminology (if indeed such a consensus exists) is a good idea. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
 * The other three points you bring up are kind of confusing for me. I don't really think you've presented any argument for making them into exceptions. Basically your reasoning appears to boil down to "Let's make these into exceptions, because why not?" The problem with this is that NOTBROKEN is a consensus-based guideline. Nobody would take us seriously if we proposed exceptions to it without actually giving concrete reasons why the exceptions are needed. The answer to your "is it a problem?" and "shouldn't it be OK?" questions above would be answered by the editors at NOTBROKEN with "Yes it's a problem (see point #4), and no it's not OK (see point #6)." These are consensus-based views on those exact topics.
 * To create an exception we can't just ignore consensus. We have to find a reason that the consensus view is too broad and that in narrowly definable situations the general rules at NOTBROKEN should be excepted. Then we have to convince others based on solid reasoning. If there is no way to distinguish the area to which the rule applies from the area to which the exception applies then we have to propose knocking down part of the rules which will be a much more difficult task and will absolutely require ironclad arguments, not just "why not?" In addition to answering the questions I bulleted above, could you please try to think of specific reasons why we need (or how it would be helpful to have) an exception for common names, obscure aspects, and synonymous terms? -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again TJ Spyke. What is your schedule like? Are you going to have any free time in the next few weeks? I'd like to move forward with our plans regarding the development of a few more exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN. It's been nearly a month since we began talking about this, but if we're to move this forward we have to actually discuss it. I don't want to do this without your help. In fact most of my interest in getting this done is to help editors like you who seem to have problems with the current guidelines. Is this something that still interests you? When will you be available to answer questions like those I asked in the last post? Please don't just leave me hanging here. -Thibbs (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well while I'm waiting for word from you on some kind of timeframe I noticed that you'd performed a few more redirect "fixes" since I last asked you to stop and I can report that I agree most of them. But edits like this and this suggest further exceptions to the rule. From the first of those two links (relinking to the actual page name on a dab page), I think this brings up a good point - that we should add an exception for disambiguation pages per WP:PIPING. The second one (changing a link to a plural term into a link to the singular) looks like just another "fix" for reasons of your own. Can you explain that change? Was there a reason you decided to again violate NOTBROKEN in that case? For all I know there may be policy/guideline supporting that edit but if so then this suggests another good exception. -Thibbs (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Ashley Fliehr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Providence High School


 * List of acronyms: W (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to WWF


 * Takeshi's Castle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Fuji

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Question about cleanup process
Hi TJ Spyke, I noticed that you've been cleaning up numerous articles today and I was curious how you were doing it. Is it all by hand or do you use a program? Specifically I'm curious how you check the wikilinks. Are you testing each one individually or is there a tool you have that highlights all redirects? -Thibbs (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I use WPCleaner to check articles, but there are some edits that can't be made with it (like spellchecking, typos, etc.), so I then manually edit it after (essentially, I copy and paste the results from WPCleaner, then continue editing the article).  TJ   Spyke   21:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. Is WPCleaner something that you can download from a Wikimedia site/affiliate or should I just Google it if I want to find it? -Thibbs (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here you go: WPCleaner.  TJ   Spyke   21:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm sorry to say I've reverted your edit at the Derby Stallion article yet again. The links that you are "fixing" are indeed redirect links. And per WP:NOTBROKEN, redirects within an article are not supposed to be changed so that they point to the target article instead. There are a number of reasons why this is harmful to Wikipedia and they're clearly spelled out under WP:NOTBROKEN. This has become a problem in the past with users accidentally abusing the Navigation popup tool to "fix" redirects as you're doing and the result was this page. This is actually the reason I was asking above what tool you were using. I was curious to see what other tools were being subjected to this kind of abuse. The WPCleaner talk page is filled with comments regarding users mistakenly "fixing" redirects (e.g. 1, 2, 3, and many more in the archives from 2008 and earlier). The thing is... I've already explained all of this to you in the past (see e.g. 1 and 2). And I know you are aware of this issue because you have already received a final warning on the subject. So I really don't see how what you are doing could be considered good faith editing. Your editing is contrary to the guidelines and you have been repeatedly told this and warned to stop. Normally I'd suggest trying to get the guidelines changed before carrying on in this way, but in this case from your block log it's clear to me that you've consciously decided to change matters unilaterally rather than by seeking consensus. For this reason I've requested administrative action. -Thibbs (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, you did not read NOTBROKEN correctly at all. I have not been making the kinds of edits that got me into trouble before, I have been careful to only makes ones that follow the guidelines. I am sorry that you are not a good editor and dont like others making articles better, but stop vandalizing pages by reverting good edits. I am hesitant to give you a warning, but I will. Frankly, its people like you who are driving editors away from Wikipedia and preventing so many articles from being improved. Go away.  TJ   Spyke   00:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't react like this to new editors. I react this way to editors who have been editing here for 7-odd years and are among the top 400 most prolific editors and who have received a shocking number of warnings and frank blocks including an indef block. You obviously know better than to persist in these games but yet you continue. AGF only extends so far. You clearly have no regard for community guidelines founded on consensus and are only interested in your own editorial decisions. I'm sorry that you decided to take this route. It was a very poor decision on your part. -Thibbs (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, to Derby Stallion (series) is full of unhelpful changes as per WP:NOTBROKEN.  Amalthea  09:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, I see no unhelpful edits. I will not pretend 100% of my edits have been helpful, but ask any average editor and that change is nothing but helpful. And frankly, you shouldnt drive away good editors since fewer and fewer people are editing Wikipedia now. I also notice that I only get hounded when I mass edit articles, I dont get harassed when I only edit a few articles a day.  TJ   Spyke   20:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "It is likewise unhelpful to edit visible links for no reason other than to avoid redirects." Amalthea  22:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A great majority of your NOTBROKEN violations are harmful actually. Try actually reading the guideline. You might be surprised to discover that there are at least six explicitly listed reasons not to change (bypass) redirects. One obvious one is that you are whitewashing usage stats - an activity that is at best completely pointless. But more often it's not completely harmless. It's directly harmful because it obscures the need for new articles on topics that aren't covered and it hides more appropriate and thus needed page-moves.
 * How on earth could these violations be "nothing but helpful"? I can't think of a single way that they help. Correcting incorrect titles or misspelled words or redirect like that is one thing, but how does it help anybody if you change horse breaking to horse training (to take a random example from the Derby Stallion article)? It hides the fact that there is no article on horse breaking - a clearly distinct concept from horse training and it reduces the likelihood that anyone will write an article on horse breaking. In what world does that help in any way whatsoever? At very best it's a completely pointless time-wasting activity. And it's one that you have been warned over and over and over again to stop. Does the consensus of your fellow editor on this issue really matter so little to you that you are unwilling to put an end to this distinctly non-helpful activity? Does the possibility that you may get blocked for a 24th (!!!) time mean nothing to you? I hope I'm not overreacting here, but I find your conduct in this one trivial editorial area to be truly incomprehensible. -Thibbs (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been careful to avoid those types of link changes. How is changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3" doing any harm? There is never gonna be a "Playstation 3" article, ever. And in that Derby Stallion article, changing "PlayStation" to "PlayStation (console)" IS directly helpful and needed because the latter refers to the game system called PlayStation and the former refers to the general product line. Or changing links to "Famicom" to be "Nintendo Entertainment System|Famicom", there will never be a separate Famicom article because it's just the Japanese name of the NES. Sometimes I make mistakes (like with the horse breaking one), but I see it as vandalism when editors revert the whole edit instead of just specific link changes they see as bad.  TJ   Spyke   15:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Look I recognize that apart from this one issue (and I guess the 3RR stuff from your past that I think you've mostly stopped now) you are a good editor. And I also recognize that you're human and that you may make mistakes. But seeing as how you've made so many many mistakes in this one particular area I would seriously recommend avoiding it altogether. Just skimming the cleanups you've performed since you were last unblocked, it's apparent that the large majority of the redirect "fixes" you performed were potentially harmful. And a tiny minority of them are helpful in any way.
 * Is there a reason you feel compelled to change the redirects? I assume it's not just to boost your edit count, right? But is it just because it looks ugly on WPCleaner? Or do you really think that this is somehow helpful? If you do think it is helpful then have you considered making the case to change the guidelines at WP:NOTBROKEN? Because there are only 2 listed exceptions to that guideline currently. I wouldn't say that this is a complete list of all good exceptions, though. Your example of changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3", for instance, seems to me to be correcting a misspelling (or really a mis-capitalization). And I think that this is helpful and that it should be listed as an exception to WP:NOTBROKEN.
 * Why don't you and I try to come up with some exceptions that we could propose to the community together to improve the guidelines so that you're not constantly violating them? If you could come up with a reason why changing "video arcade" to "amusement arcade" or how changing "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System" or how changing "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" helps in any way then you could certainly make that suggestion as well. This would be a much much better way of approaching the problem than just ignoring everyone's warnings and getting banned over and over, don't you think? I'd be willing to help draft some proposed changes if you're willing to engage with me and explain why you feel compelled to violate this guideline. -Thibbs (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me (and withe something like the Dragon Quest, it's because the series name in English was Dragon Warrior before the the Dragon Quest VIII. Amusement arcade and video arcade are essentially interchangeable terms like "pop" and "soda". As for Famicom, aren't we supposed to use English names of products if that is the best known name? Famicom is just the Japanese name of the NES, so I would think other WP policies supported changing them to NES). I've never bothered trying to have NOTBROKEN changed because I know from experience how hard it can be to have policies on Wikipedia changed. Maybe later today or something we can start working on this together to propose changes that seem like common sense to most people.  TJ   Spyke   16:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm encouraged by your attitude. I think we should discuss this thoroughly between us here before proposing anything so that we're clear in our arguments. It's OK if we disagree too, since we can propose changes individually to be accepted piecemeal rather than only as a single package. Anyway here are my thoughts on what you've said just above:
 * Like the term "video arcade", the other two are also examples of synonymous terms: Dragon Warrior is the North American term whereas the English term is actually Dragon Quest (the same is true for all European countries and Japan actually); Famicom is the original Japanese name for the NES. According to NOTBROKEN (point 6), the use of a synonymous redirect term provides useful information relating to usage of the term which can be considered as evidence for renaming the article. By systematically changing these links to the current non-redirect title, you are manipulating the usage statistics. As an example: it might be that the term "Dragon Quest" is better known than "Dragon Warrior", but because you'd have changed all of the "Dragon Quest" redirects into "Dragon Warrior," you would have eradicated this information and we would get a false impression that "Dragon Warrior" was the most commonly used term when in reality it was only the most commonly used because the statistics had been manipulated. If you don't like that example, try imagining the reverse. Imagine someone who called the game "Dragon Quest" trying to make the case that the article should be renamed. So first he would change all the links to redirects and then point to the incoming links as evidence that everyone calls it Dragon Quest. You can see how that would be a problem, right? I think what NOTBROKEN is saying is that it's safest if we rely on the real usage statistics by refraining from changing synonymous terms. They are synonyms, after all, so the meaning is identical, right?
 * But I think you might have a point if your central concern was consistency. There have been large discussions in the past regarding whether or not Wikipedia should preferentially use the term "Sega Genesis" or "Master Drive" for example. I'm sure the same could exist for terms from popular consumer products like "Famicom/NES" or "Dragon Quest/Warrior" as well. If there has been a community discussion where one term was decided as the preferred term then I think you could make the case that perhaps it would be a good idea to use a single term in the interest of consistency. Does that sound like it might be the core of your argument for these words? Or do you instead find a problem with NOTBROKEN's argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics?
 * Another redirect dodge I was hoping you could explain is when you changed "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games". These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN's argument that "Shortcuts or redirects to sections of articles ... should never be bypassed, as the section headings on the page may change over time [and] Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links" (point 4; emphasis and ellipses added). So you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions? -Thibbs (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi TJ Spyke. Just checking in again. What's happening now? Why has this conversation stalled? Have you had a chance to read what I just wrote above? I noticed that you've again resumed with the NOTBROKEN violations (swapping "United States of America" for "United States"). I don't think it's too much to ask that you completely refrain from this kind of edit until we've finished discussing our plans for how to present our argument at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. You are violating the guidelines when you make this kind of edit and you've been asked to stop over and over again. Please help me come up with some exceptions that we can present for consensus instead of just continuing to stubbornly violate the guidelines and hope that I'll go away. I won't. I really want to work with you here, but if I see it again I will bring it to AN/I. -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, I didnt do anything wrong with United States. It's the common name of the country and what everyone writes (hell, even the article uses the name) and I know that did NOT violate any rule. Frankly, saying that deleting two words so it uses the common name is wrong, is like saying you can't edit a article to fix a spelling mistake. Might as well freeze all editing. Did I somehow violate it in another article when I changed Major League Baseball to Major League Baseball ? Anyways, i've been busy. But im free now.  TJ   Spyke   15:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Repairing broken wikilinks is not a violation of NOTBROKEN, but changing from one synonymous term (like the official name of a country) to another synonymous term (like the common name for a country) for the same target article is definitely a violation of NOTBROKEN. I don't mean this to sound rude, but you have to accept the fact that your judgment on whether or not a redirect "fix" violates NOTBROKEN is clearly quite poor. I strongly urge you to avoid making those kinds of edits even if you are certain that you're in the right because you are obviously unable to differentiate between violations and non-violations. Anyway I'm glad to hear that you're free now and I'm eager to get to work on the exceptions. -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding Dragon Warrior/Quest, it is not true that Quest was common in European countries. The first game in the series even RELEASED in Europe was Dragon Warrior Monsters in 1999 (where it used "Warrior"), they didnt get another one until Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King (which was when Square Enix FIRST used the "Quest" name outside of Japan). So considering that for almost 20 years the only English name of the series was "Warrior", it makes sense for the ones released with the Warrior name to use that. As for exceptions to NOTBROKEN:


 * I think fixing spelling mistakes and capitalization (i.e. Playstation to PlayStation) are good ones that are not controversial.
 * Hmmm, maybe switching some to the most common name can be OK (though within the right context)
 * Sometimes things will never get an article. I.e. a character who appeared once on a TV show 20 years ago will probably never get an article as they are not notable enough, but they might have an entry in a article about characters from that show. Is it a problem to change a link to that section specifically?
 * If a product is released under one name in most of the world, shouldn't it be OK to write that as the name? I.e. NES/Famicom. Famicom is the Japanese name of the system, but they are still the same system. Doesn't it make sense to change the links to NES? It's especially ridiculous when some articles say a game was released on the NES and Famicom (implying they are different).

Maybe others, but these are off the top of my head.  TJ   Spyke   15:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All PAL versions of the main series are called "Dragon Quest," but that's quite beside the point. The point is that these are synonymous terms and "fixing" them to avoid the redirect violates NOTBROKEN point #6. Unless there has been a discussion leading to a consistency-based preference for one term over the other, the term used by the first European spinoff title has no significance whatsoever and the redirect should not be altered. But this brings me to the question I asked last week:
 * Is switching "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" (or "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System", etc.) something that you have been doing in the interest of inter-article consistency? Is that the core of your argument? Or do you simply reject NOTBROKEN's point #6 (i.e. the argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics)?
 * And as long as I'm re-asking questions from last week,...
 * Could you explain your thought process behind changing "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games"? These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN point #4 (described in last week's comment above). Do you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions?
 * Regarding your exceptions, I agree strongly with the first one (spelling & capitalization). That's definitely going into the final draft of our proposal. I also think that the alteration of redirect terms to reflect a consistent consensus-based terminology (if indeed such a consensus exists) is a good idea. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
 * The other three points you bring up are kind of confusing for me. I don't really think you've presented any argument for making them into exceptions. Basically your reasoning appears to boil down to "Let's make these into exceptions, because why not?" The problem with this is that NOTBROKEN is a consensus-based guideline. Nobody would take us seriously if we proposed exceptions to it without actually giving concrete reasons why the exceptions are needed. The answer to your "is it a problem?" and "shouldn't it be OK?" questions above would be answered by the editors at NOTBROKEN with "Yes it's a problem (see point #4), and no it's not OK (see point #6)." These are consensus-based views on those exact topics.
 * To create an exception we can't just ignore consensus. We have to find a reason that the consensus view is too broad and that in narrowly definable situations the general rules at NOTBROKEN should be excepted. Then we have to convince others based on solid reasoning. If there is no way to distinguish the area to which the rule applies from the area to which the exception applies then we have to propose knocking down part of the rules which will be a much more difficult task and will absolutely require ironclad arguments, not just "why not?" In addition to answering the questions I bulleted above, could you please try to think of specific reasons why we need (or how it would be helpful to have) an exception for common names, obscure aspects, and synonymous terms? -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again TJ Spyke. What is your schedule like? Are you going to have any free time in the next few weeks? I'd like to move forward with our plans regarding the development of a few more exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN. It's been nearly a month since we began talking about this, but if we're to move this forward we have to actually discuss it. I don't want to do this without your help. In fact most of my interest in getting this done is to help editors like you who seem to have problems with the current guidelines. Is this something that still interests you? When will you be available to answer questions like those I asked in the last post? Please don't just leave me hanging here. -Thibbs (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well while I'm waiting for word from you on some kind of timeframe I noticed that you'd performed a few more redirect "fixes" since I last asked you to stop and I can report that I agree most of them. But edits like this and this suggest further exceptions to the rule. From the first of those two links (relinking to the actual page name on a dab page), I think this brings up a good point - that we should add an exception for disambiguation pages per WP:PIPING. The second one (changing a link to a plural term into a link to the singular) looks like just another "fix" for reasons of your own. Can you explain that change? Was there a reason you decided to again violate NOTBROKEN in that case? For all I know there may be policy/guideline supporting that edit but if so then this suggests another good exception. -Thibbs (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Ashley Fliehr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Providence High School


 * List of acronyms: W (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to WWF


 * Takeshi's Castle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Fuji

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Question about cleanup process
Hi TJ Spyke, I noticed that you've been cleaning up numerous articles today and I was curious how you were doing it. Is it all by hand or do you use a program? Specifically I'm curious how you check the wikilinks. Are you testing each one individually or is there a tool you have that highlights all redirects? -Thibbs (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I use WPCleaner to check articles, but there are some edits that can't be made with it (like spellchecking, typos, etc.), so I then manually edit it after (essentially, I copy and paste the results from WPCleaner, then continue editing the article).  TJ   Spyke   21:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. Is WPCleaner something that you can download from a Wikimedia site/affiliate or should I just Google it if I want to find it? -Thibbs (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here you go: WPCleaner.  TJ   Spyke   21:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm sorry to say I've reverted your edit at the Derby Stallion article yet again. The links that you are "fixing" are indeed redirect links. And per WP:NOTBROKEN, redirects within an article are not supposed to be changed so that they point to the target article instead. There are a number of reasons why this is harmful to Wikipedia and they're clearly spelled out under WP:NOTBROKEN. This has become a problem in the past with users accidentally abusing the Navigation popup tool to "fix" redirects as you're doing and the result was this page. This is actually the reason I was asking above what tool you were using. I was curious to see what other tools were being subjected to this kind of abuse. The WPCleaner talk page is filled with comments regarding users mistakenly "fixing" redirects (e.g. 1, 2, 3, and many more in the archives from 2008 and earlier). The thing is... I've already explained all of this to you in the past (see e.g. 1 and 2). And I know you are aware of this issue because you have already received a final warning on the subject. So I really don't see how what you are doing could be considered good faith editing. Your editing is contrary to the guidelines and you have been repeatedly told this and warned to stop. Normally I'd suggest trying to get the guidelines changed before carrying on in this way, but in this case from your block log it's clear to me that you've consciously decided to change matters unilaterally rather than by seeking consensus. For this reason I've requested administrative action. -Thibbs (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, you did not read NOTBROKEN correctly at all. I have not been making the kinds of edits that got me into trouble before, I have been careful to only makes ones that follow the guidelines. I am sorry that you are not a good editor and dont like others making articles better, but stop vandalizing pages by reverting good edits. I am hesitant to give you a warning, but I will. Frankly, its people like you who are driving editors away from Wikipedia and preventing so many articles from being improved. Go away.  TJ   Spyke   00:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't react like this to new editors. I react this way to editors who have been editing here for 7-odd years and are among the top 400 most prolific editors and who have received a shocking number of warnings and frank blocks including an indef block. You obviously know better than to persist in these games but yet you continue. AGF only extends so far. You clearly have no regard for community guidelines founded on consensus and are only interested in your own editorial decisions. I'm sorry that you decided to take this route. It was a very poor decision on your part. -Thibbs (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, to Derby Stallion (series) is full of unhelpful changes as per WP:NOTBROKEN.  Amalthea  09:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, I see no unhelpful edits. I will not pretend 100% of my edits have been helpful, but ask any average editor and that change is nothing but helpful. And frankly, you shouldnt drive away good editors since fewer and fewer people are editing Wikipedia now. I also notice that I only get hounded when I mass edit articles, I dont get harassed when I only edit a few articles a day.  TJ   Spyke   20:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "It is likewise unhelpful to edit visible links for no reason other than to avoid redirects." Amalthea  22:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A great majority of your NOTBROKEN violations are harmful actually. Try actually reading the guideline. You might be surprised to discover that there are at least six explicitly listed reasons not to change (bypass) redirects. One obvious one is that you are whitewashing usage stats - an activity that is at best completely pointless. But more often it's not completely harmless. It's directly harmful because it obscures the need for new articles on topics that aren't covered and it hides more appropriate and thus needed page-moves.
 * How on earth could these violations be "nothing but helpful"? I can't think of a single way that they help. Correcting incorrect titles or misspelled words or redirect like that is one thing, but how does it help anybody if you change horse breaking to horse training (to take a random example from the Derby Stallion article)? It hides the fact that there is no article on horse breaking - a clearly distinct concept from horse training and it reduces the likelihood that anyone will write an article on horse breaking. In what world does that help in any way whatsoever? At very best it's a completely pointless time-wasting activity. And it's one that you have been warned over and over and over again to stop. Does the consensus of your fellow editor on this issue really matter so little to you that you are unwilling to put an end to this distinctly non-helpful activity? Does the possibility that you may get blocked for a 24th (!!!) time mean nothing to you? I hope I'm not overreacting here, but I find your conduct in this one trivial editorial area to be truly incomprehensible. -Thibbs (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been careful to avoid those types of link changes. How is changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3" doing any harm? There is never gonna be a "Playstation 3" article, ever. And in that Derby Stallion article, changing "PlayStation" to "PlayStation (console)" IS directly helpful and needed because the latter refers to the game system called PlayStation and the former refers to the general product line. Or changing links to "Famicom" to be "Nintendo Entertainment System|Famicom", there will never be a separate Famicom article because it's just the Japanese name of the NES. Sometimes I make mistakes (like with the horse breaking one), but I see it as vandalism when editors revert the whole edit instead of just specific link changes they see as bad.  TJ   Spyke   15:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Look I recognize that apart from this one issue (and I guess the 3RR stuff from your past that I think you've mostly stopped now) you are a good editor. And I also recognize that you're human and that you may make mistakes. But seeing as how you've made so many many mistakes in this one particular area I would seriously recommend avoiding it altogether. Just skimming the cleanups you've performed since you were last unblocked, it's apparent that the large majority of the redirect "fixes" you performed were potentially harmful. And a tiny minority of them are helpful in any way.
 * Is there a reason you feel compelled to change the redirects? I assume it's not just to boost your edit count, right? But is it just because it looks ugly on WPCleaner? Or do you really think that this is somehow helpful? If you do think it is helpful then have you considered making the case to change the guidelines at WP:NOTBROKEN? Because there are only 2 listed exceptions to that guideline currently. I wouldn't say that this is a complete list of all good exceptions, though. Your example of changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3", for instance, seems to me to be correcting a misspelling (or really a mis-capitalization). And I think that this is helpful and that it should be listed as an exception to WP:NOTBROKEN.
 * Why don't you and I try to come up with some exceptions that we could propose to the community together to improve the guidelines so that you're not constantly violating them? If you could come up with a reason why changing "video arcade" to "amusement arcade" or how changing "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System" or how changing "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" helps in any way then you could certainly make that suggestion as well. This would be a much much better way of approaching the problem than just ignoring everyone's warnings and getting banned over and over, don't you think? I'd be willing to help draft some proposed changes if you're willing to engage with me and explain why you feel compelled to violate this guideline. -Thibbs (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me (and withe something like the Dragon Quest, it's because the series name in English was Dragon Warrior before the the Dragon Quest VIII. Amusement arcade and video arcade are essentially interchangeable terms like "pop" and "soda". As for Famicom, aren't we supposed to use English names of products if that is the best known name? Famicom is just the Japanese name of the NES, so I would think other WP policies supported changing them to NES). I've never bothered trying to have NOTBROKEN changed because I know from experience how hard it can be to have policies on Wikipedia changed. Maybe later today or something we can start working on this together to propose changes that seem like common sense to most people.  TJ   Spyke   16:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm encouraged by your attitude. I think we should discuss this thoroughly between us here before proposing anything so that we're clear in our arguments. It's OK if we disagree too, since we can propose changes individually to be accepted piecemeal rather than only as a single package. Anyway here are my thoughts on what you've said just above:
 * Like the term "video arcade", the other two are also examples of synonymous terms: Dragon Warrior is the North American term whereas the English term is actually Dragon Quest (the same is true for all European countries and Japan actually); Famicom is the original Japanese name for the NES. According to NOTBROKEN (point 6), the use of a synonymous redirect term provides useful information relating to usage of the term which can be considered as evidence for renaming the article. By systematically changing these links to the current non-redirect title, you are manipulating the usage statistics. As an example: it might be that the term "Dragon Quest" is better known than "Dragon Warrior", but because you'd have changed all of the "Dragon Quest" redirects into "Dragon Warrior," you would have eradicated this information and we would get a false impression that "Dragon Warrior" was the most commonly used term when in reality it was only the most commonly used because the statistics had been manipulated. If you don't like that example, try imagining the reverse. Imagine someone who called the game "Dragon Quest" trying to make the case that the article should be renamed. So first he would change all the links to redirects and then point to the incoming links as evidence that everyone calls it Dragon Quest. You can see how that would be a problem, right? I think what NOTBROKEN is saying is that it's safest if we rely on the real usage statistics by refraining from changing synonymous terms. They are synonyms, after all, so the meaning is identical, right?
 * But I think you might have a point if your central concern was consistency. There have been large discussions in the past regarding whether or not Wikipedia should preferentially use the term "Sega Genesis" or "Master Drive" for example. I'm sure the same could exist for terms from popular consumer products like "Famicom/NES" or "Dragon Quest/Warrior" as well. If there has been a community discussion where one term was decided as the preferred term then I think you could make the case that perhaps it would be a good idea to use a single term in the interest of consistency. Does that sound like it might be the core of your argument for these words? Or do you instead find a problem with NOTBROKEN's argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics?
 * Another redirect dodge I was hoping you could explain is when you changed "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games". These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN's argument that "Shortcuts or redirects to sections of articles ... should never be bypassed, as the section headings on the page may change over time [and] Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links" (point 4; emphasis and ellipses added). So you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions? -Thibbs (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi TJ Spyke. Just checking in again. What's happening now? Why has this conversation stalled? Have you had a chance to read what I just wrote above? I noticed that you've again resumed with the NOTBROKEN violations (swapping "United States of America" for "United States"). I don't think it's too much to ask that you completely refrain from this kind of edit until we've finished discussing our plans for how to present our argument at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. You are violating the guidelines when you make this kind of edit and you've been asked to stop over and over again. Please help me come up with some exceptions that we can present for consensus instead of just continuing to stubbornly violate the guidelines and hope that I'll go away. I won't. I really want to work with you here, but if I see it again I will bring it to AN/I. -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, I didnt do anything wrong with United States. It's the common name of the country and what everyone writes (hell, even the article uses the name) and I know that did NOT violate any rule. Frankly, saying that deleting two words so it uses the common name is wrong, is like saying you can't edit a article to fix a spelling mistake. Might as well freeze all editing. Did I somehow violate it in another article when I changed Major League Baseball to Major League Baseball ? Anyways, i've been busy. But im free now.  TJ   Spyke   15:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Repairing broken wikilinks is not a violation of NOTBROKEN, but changing from one synonymous term (like the official name of a country) to another synonymous term (like the common name for a country) for the same target article is definitely a violation of NOTBROKEN. I don't mean this to sound rude, but you have to accept the fact that your judgment on whether or not a redirect "fix" violates NOTBROKEN is clearly quite poor. I strongly urge you to avoid making those kinds of edits even if you are certain that you're in the right because you are obviously unable to differentiate between violations and non-violations. Anyway I'm glad to hear that you're free now and I'm eager to get to work on the exceptions. -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding Dragon Warrior/Quest, it is not true that Quest was common in European countries. The first game in the series even RELEASED in Europe was Dragon Warrior Monsters in 1999 (where it used "Warrior"), they didnt get another one until Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King (which was when Square Enix FIRST used the "Quest" name outside of Japan). So considering that for almost 20 years the only English name of the series was "Warrior", it makes sense for the ones released with the Warrior name to use that. As for exceptions to NOTBROKEN:


 * I think fixing spelling mistakes and capitalization (i.e. Playstation to PlayStation) are good ones that are not controversial.
 * Hmmm, maybe switching some to the most common name can be OK (though within the right context)
 * Sometimes things will never get an article. I.e. a character who appeared once on a TV show 20 years ago will probably never get an article as they are not notable enough, but they might have an entry in a article about characters from that show. Is it a problem to change a link to that section specifically?
 * If a product is released under one name in most of the world, shouldn't it be OK to write that as the name? I.e. NES/Famicom. Famicom is the Japanese name of the system, but they are still the same system. Doesn't it make sense to change the links to NES? It's especially ridiculous when some articles say a game was released on the NES and Famicom (implying they are different).

Maybe others, but these are off the top of my head.  TJ   Spyke   15:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All PAL versions of the main series are called "Dragon Quest," but that's quite beside the point. The point is that these are synonymous terms and "fixing" them to avoid the redirect violates NOTBROKEN point #6. Unless there has been a discussion leading to a consistency-based preference for one term over the other, the term used by the first European spinoff title has no significance whatsoever and the redirect should not be altered. But this brings me to the question I asked last week:
 * Is switching "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" (or "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System", etc.) something that you have been doing in the interest of inter-article consistency? Is that the core of your argument? Or do you simply reject NOTBROKEN's point #6 (i.e. the argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics)?
 * And as long as I'm re-asking questions from last week,...
 * Could you explain your thought process behind changing "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games"? These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN point #4 (described in last week's comment above). Do you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions?
 * Regarding your exceptions, I agree strongly with the first one (spelling & capitalization). That's definitely going into the final draft of our proposal. I also think that the alteration of redirect terms to reflect a consistent consensus-based terminology (if indeed such a consensus exists) is a good idea. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
 * The other three points you bring up are kind of confusing for me. I don't really think you've presented any argument for making them into exceptions. Basically your reasoning appears to boil down to "Let's make these into exceptions, because why not?" The problem with this is that NOTBROKEN is a consensus-based guideline. Nobody would take us seriously if we proposed exceptions to it without actually giving concrete reasons why the exceptions are needed. The answer to your "is it a problem?" and "shouldn't it be OK?" questions above would be answered by the editors at NOTBROKEN with "Yes it's a problem (see point #4), and no it's not OK (see point #6)." These are consensus-based views on those exact topics.
 * To create an exception we can't just ignore consensus. We have to find a reason that the consensus view is too broad and that in narrowly definable situations the general rules at NOTBROKEN should be excepted. Then we have to convince others based on solid reasoning. If there is no way to distinguish the area to which the rule applies from the area to which the exception applies then we have to propose knocking down part of the rules which will be a much more difficult task and will absolutely require ironclad arguments, not just "why not?" In addition to answering the questions I bulleted above, could you please try to think of specific reasons why we need (or how it would be helpful to have) an exception for common names, obscure aspects, and synonymous terms? -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again TJ Spyke. What is your schedule like? Are you going to have any free time in the next few weeks? I'd like to move forward with our plans regarding the development of a few more exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN. It's been nearly a month since we began talking about this, but if we're to move this forward we have to actually discuss it. I don't want to do this without your help. In fact most of my interest in getting this done is to help editors like you who seem to have problems with the current guidelines. Is this something that still interests you? When will you be available to answer questions like those I asked in the last post? Please don't just leave me hanging here. -Thibbs (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well while I'm waiting for word from you on some kind of timeframe I noticed that you'd performed a few more redirect "fixes" since I last asked you to stop and I can report that I agree most of them. But edits like this and this suggest further exceptions to the rule. From the first of those two links (relinking to the actual page name on a dab page), I think this brings up a good point - that we should add an exception for disambiguation pages per WP:PIPING. The second one (changing a link to a plural term into a link to the singular) looks like just another "fix" for reasons of your own. Can you explain that change? Was there a reason you decided to again violate NOTBROKEN in that case? For all I know there may be policy/guideline supporting that edit but if so then this suggests another good exception. -Thibbs (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and  claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place and second place  both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 16:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Ashley Fliehr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Providence High School


 * List of acronyms: W (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to WWF


 * Takeshi's Castle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Fuji

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Question about cleanup process
Hi TJ Spyke, I noticed that you've been cleaning up numerous articles today and I was curious how you were doing it. Is it all by hand or do you use a program? Specifically I'm curious how you check the wikilinks. Are you testing each one individually or is there a tool you have that highlights all redirects? -Thibbs (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I use WPCleaner to check articles, but there are some edits that can't be made with it (like spellchecking, typos, etc.), so I then manually edit it after (essentially, I copy and paste the results from WPCleaner, then continue editing the article).  TJ   Spyke   21:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. Is WPCleaner something that you can download from a Wikimedia site/affiliate or should I just Google it if I want to find it? -Thibbs (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here you go: WPCleaner.  TJ   Spyke   21:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm sorry to say I've reverted your edit at the Derby Stallion article yet again. The links that you are "fixing" are indeed redirect links. And per WP:NOTBROKEN, redirects within an article are not supposed to be changed so that they point to the target article instead. There are a number of reasons why this is harmful to Wikipedia and they're clearly spelled out under WP:NOTBROKEN. This has become a problem in the past with users accidentally abusing the Navigation popup tool to "fix" redirects as you're doing and the result was this page. This is actually the reason I was asking above what tool you were using. I was curious to see what other tools were being subjected to this kind of abuse. The WPCleaner talk page is filled with comments regarding users mistakenly "fixing" redirects (e.g. 1, 2, 3, and many more in the archives from 2008 and earlier). The thing is... I've already explained all of this to you in the past (see e.g. 1 and 2). And I know you are aware of this issue because you have already received a final warning on the subject. So I really don't see how what you are doing could be considered good faith editing. Your editing is contrary to the guidelines and you have been repeatedly told this and warned to stop. Normally I'd suggest trying to get the guidelines changed before carrying on in this way, but in this case from your block log it's clear to me that you've consciously decided to change matters unilaterally rather than by seeking consensus. For this reason I've requested administrative action. -Thibbs (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, you did not read NOTBROKEN correctly at all. I have not been making the kinds of edits that got me into trouble before, I have been careful to only makes ones that follow the guidelines. I am sorry that you are not a good editor and dont like others making articles better, but stop vandalizing pages by reverting good edits. I am hesitant to give you a warning, but I will. Frankly, its people like you who are driving editors away from Wikipedia and preventing so many articles from being improved. Go away.  TJ   Spyke   00:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't react like this to new editors. I react this way to editors who have been editing here for 7-odd years and are among the top 400 most prolific editors and who have received a shocking number of warnings and frank blocks including an indef block. You obviously know better than to persist in these games but yet you continue. AGF only extends so far. You clearly have no regard for community guidelines founded on consensus and are only interested in your own editorial decisions. I'm sorry that you decided to take this route. It was a very poor decision on your part. -Thibbs (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, to Derby Stallion (series) is full of unhelpful changes as per WP:NOTBROKEN.  Amalthea  09:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, I see no unhelpful edits. I will not pretend 100% of my edits have been helpful, but ask any average editor and that change is nothing but helpful. And frankly, you shouldnt drive away good editors since fewer and fewer people are editing Wikipedia now. I also notice that I only get hounded when I mass edit articles, I dont get harassed when I only edit a few articles a day.  TJ   Spyke   20:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "It is likewise unhelpful to edit visible links for no reason other than to avoid redirects." Amalthea  22:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A great majority of your NOTBROKEN violations are harmful actually. Try actually reading the guideline. You might be surprised to discover that there are at least six explicitly listed reasons not to change (bypass) redirects. One obvious one is that you are whitewashing usage stats - an activity that is at best completely pointless. But more often it's not completely harmless. It's directly harmful because it obscures the need for new articles on topics that aren't covered and it hides more appropriate and thus needed page-moves.
 * How on earth could these violations be "nothing but helpful"? I can't think of a single way that they help. Correcting incorrect titles or misspelled words or redirect like that is one thing, but how does it help anybody if you change horse breaking to horse training (to take a random example from the Derby Stallion article)? It hides the fact that there is no article on horse breaking - a clearly distinct concept from horse training and it reduces the likelihood that anyone will write an article on horse breaking. In what world does that help in any way whatsoever? At very best it's a completely pointless time-wasting activity. And it's one that you have been warned over and over and over again to stop. Does the consensus of your fellow editor on this issue really matter so little to you that you are unwilling to put an end to this distinctly non-helpful activity? Does the possibility that you may get blocked for a 24th (!!!) time mean nothing to you? I hope I'm not overreacting here, but I find your conduct in this one trivial editorial area to be truly incomprehensible. -Thibbs (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been careful to avoid those types of link changes. How is changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3" doing any harm? There is never gonna be a "Playstation 3" article, ever. And in that Derby Stallion article, changing "PlayStation" to "PlayStation (console)" IS directly helpful and needed because the latter refers to the game system called PlayStation and the former refers to the general product line. Or changing links to "Famicom" to be "Nintendo Entertainment System|Famicom", there will never be a separate Famicom article because it's just the Japanese name of the NES. Sometimes I make mistakes (like with the horse breaking one), but I see it as vandalism when editors revert the whole edit instead of just specific link changes they see as bad.  TJ   Spyke   15:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Look I recognize that apart from this one issue (and I guess the 3RR stuff from your past that I think you've mostly stopped now) you are a good editor. And I also recognize that you're human and that you may make mistakes. But seeing as how you've made so many many mistakes in this one particular area I would seriously recommend avoiding it altogether. Just skimming the cleanups you've performed since you were last unblocked, it's apparent that the large majority of the redirect "fixes" you performed were potentially harmful. And a tiny minority of them are helpful in any way.
 * Is there a reason you feel compelled to change the redirects? I assume it's not just to boost your edit count, right? But is it just because it looks ugly on WPCleaner? Or do you really think that this is somehow helpful? If you do think it is helpful then have you considered making the case to change the guidelines at WP:NOTBROKEN? Because there are only 2 listed exceptions to that guideline currently. I wouldn't say that this is a complete list of all good exceptions, though. Your example of changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3", for instance, seems to me to be correcting a misspelling (or really a mis-capitalization). And I think that this is helpful and that it should be listed as an exception to WP:NOTBROKEN.
 * Why don't you and I try to come up with some exceptions that we could propose to the community together to improve the guidelines so that you're not constantly violating them? If you could come up with a reason why changing "video arcade" to "amusement arcade" or how changing "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System" or how changing "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" helps in any way then you could certainly make that suggestion as well. This would be a much much better way of approaching the problem than just ignoring everyone's warnings and getting banned over and over, don't you think? I'd be willing to help draft some proposed changes if you're willing to engage with me and explain why you feel compelled to violate this guideline. -Thibbs (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me (and withe something like the Dragon Quest, it's because the series name in English was Dragon Warrior before the the Dragon Quest VIII. Amusement arcade and video arcade are essentially interchangeable terms like "pop" and "soda". As for Famicom, aren't we supposed to use English names of products if that is the best known name? Famicom is just the Japanese name of the NES, so I would think other WP policies supported changing them to NES). I've never bothered trying to have NOTBROKEN changed because I know from experience how hard it can be to have policies on Wikipedia changed. Maybe later today or something we can start working on this together to propose changes that seem like common sense to most people.  TJ   Spyke   16:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm encouraged by your attitude. I think we should discuss this thoroughly between us here before proposing anything so that we're clear in our arguments. It's OK if we disagree too, since we can propose changes individually to be accepted piecemeal rather than only as a single package. Anyway here are my thoughts on what you've said just above:
 * Like the term "video arcade", the other two are also examples of synonymous terms: Dragon Warrior is the North American term whereas the English term is actually Dragon Quest (the same is true for all European countries and Japan actually); Famicom is the original Japanese name for the NES. According to NOTBROKEN (point 6), the use of a synonymous redirect term provides useful information relating to usage of the term which can be considered as evidence for renaming the article. By systematically changing these links to the current non-redirect title, you are manipulating the usage statistics. As an example: it might be that the term "Dragon Quest" is better known than "Dragon Warrior", but because you'd have changed all of the "Dragon Quest" redirects into "Dragon Warrior," you would have eradicated this information and we would get a false impression that "Dragon Warrior" was the most commonly used term when in reality it was only the most commonly used because the statistics had been manipulated. If you don't like that example, try imagining the reverse. Imagine someone who called the game "Dragon Quest" trying to make the case that the article should be renamed. So first he would change all the links to redirects and then point to the incoming links as evidence that everyone calls it Dragon Quest. You can see how that would be a problem, right? I think what NOTBROKEN is saying is that it's safest if we rely on the real usage statistics by refraining from changing synonymous terms. They are synonyms, after all, so the meaning is identical, right?
 * But I think you might have a point if your central concern was consistency. There have been large discussions in the past regarding whether or not Wikipedia should preferentially use the term "Sega Genesis" or "Master Drive" for example. I'm sure the same could exist for terms from popular consumer products like "Famicom/NES" or "Dragon Quest/Warrior" as well. If there has been a community discussion where one term was decided as the preferred term then I think you could make the case that perhaps it would be a good idea to use a single term in the interest of consistency. Does that sound like it might be the core of your argument for these words? Or do you instead find a problem with NOTBROKEN's argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics?
 * Another redirect dodge I was hoping you could explain is when you changed "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games". These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN's argument that "Shortcuts or redirects to sections of articles ... should never be bypassed, as the section headings on the page may change over time [and] Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links" (point 4; emphasis and ellipses added). So you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions? -Thibbs (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi TJ Spyke. Just checking in again. What's happening now? Why has this conversation stalled? Have you had a chance to read what I just wrote above? I noticed that you've again resumed with the NOTBROKEN violations (swapping "United States of America" for "United States"). I don't think it's too much to ask that you completely refrain from this kind of edit until we've finished discussing our plans for how to present our argument at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. You are violating the guidelines when you make this kind of edit and you've been asked to stop over and over again. Please help me come up with some exceptions that we can present for consensus instead of just continuing to stubbornly violate the guidelines and hope that I'll go away. I won't. I really want to work with you here, but if I see it again I will bring it to AN/I. -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, I didnt do anything wrong with United States. It's the common name of the country and what everyone writes (hell, even the article uses the name) and I know that did NOT violate any rule. Frankly, saying that deleting two words so it uses the common name is wrong, is like saying you can't edit a article to fix a spelling mistake. Might as well freeze all editing. Did I somehow violate it in another article when I changed Major League Baseball to Major League Baseball ? Anyways, i've been busy. But im free now.  TJ   Spyke   15:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Repairing broken wikilinks is not a violation of NOTBROKEN, but changing from one synonymous term (like the official name of a country) to another synonymous term (like the common name for a country) for the same target article is definitely a violation of NOTBROKEN. I don't mean this to sound rude, but you have to accept the fact that your judgment on whether or not a redirect "fix" violates NOTBROKEN is clearly quite poor. I strongly urge you to avoid making those kinds of edits even if you are certain that you're in the right because you are obviously unable to differentiate between violations and non-violations. Anyway I'm glad to hear that you're free now and I'm eager to get to work on the exceptions. -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding Dragon Warrior/Quest, it is not true that Quest was common in European countries. The first game in the series even RELEASED in Europe was Dragon Warrior Monsters in 1999 (where it used "Warrior"), they didnt get another one until Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King (which was when Square Enix FIRST used the "Quest" name outside of Japan). So considering that for almost 20 years the only English name of the series was "Warrior", it makes sense for the ones released with the Warrior name to use that. As for exceptions to NOTBROKEN:


 * I think fixing spelling mistakes and capitalization (i.e. Playstation to PlayStation) are good ones that are not controversial.
 * Hmmm, maybe switching some to the most common name can be OK (though within the right context)
 * Sometimes things will never get an article. I.e. a character who appeared once on a TV show 20 years ago will probably never get an article as they are not notable enough, but they might have an entry in a article about characters from that show. Is it a problem to change a link to that section specifically?
 * If a product is released under one name in most of the world, shouldn't it be OK to write that as the name? I.e. NES/Famicom. Famicom is the Japanese name of the system, but they are still the same system. Doesn't it make sense to change the links to NES? It's especially ridiculous when some articles say a game was released on the NES and Famicom (implying they are different).

Maybe others, but these are off the top of my head.  TJ   Spyke   15:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All PAL versions of the main series are called "Dragon Quest," but that's quite beside the point. The point is that these are synonymous terms and "fixing" them to avoid the redirect violates NOTBROKEN point #6. Unless there has been a discussion leading to a consistency-based preference for one term over the other, the term used by the first European spinoff title has no significance whatsoever and the redirect should not be altered. But this brings me to the question I asked last week:
 * Is switching "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" (or "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System", etc.) something that you have been doing in the interest of inter-article consistency? Is that the core of your argument? Or do you simply reject NOTBROKEN's point #6 (i.e. the argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics)?
 * And as long as I'm re-asking questions from last week,...
 * Could you explain your thought process behind changing "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games"? These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN point #4 (described in last week's comment above). Do you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions?
 * Regarding your exceptions, I agree strongly with the first one (spelling & capitalization). That's definitely going into the final draft of our proposal. I also think that the alteration of redirect terms to reflect a consistent consensus-based terminology (if indeed such a consensus exists) is a good idea. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
 * The other three points you bring up are kind of confusing for me. I don't really think you've presented any argument for making them into exceptions. Basically your reasoning appears to boil down to "Let's make these into exceptions, because why not?" The problem with this is that NOTBROKEN is a consensus-based guideline. Nobody would take us seriously if we proposed exceptions to it without actually giving concrete reasons why the exceptions are needed. The answer to your "is it a problem?" and "shouldn't it be OK?" questions above would be answered by the editors at NOTBROKEN with "Yes it's a problem (see point #4), and no it's not OK (see point #6)." These are consensus-based views on those exact topics.
 * To create an exception we can't just ignore consensus. We have to find a reason that the consensus view is too broad and that in narrowly definable situations the general rules at NOTBROKEN should be excepted. Then we have to convince others based on solid reasoning. If there is no way to distinguish the area to which the rule applies from the area to which the exception applies then we have to propose knocking down part of the rules which will be a much more difficult task and will absolutely require ironclad arguments, not just "why not?" In addition to answering the questions I bulleted above, could you please try to think of specific reasons why we need (or how it would be helpful to have) an exception for common names, obscure aspects, and synonymous terms? -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again TJ Spyke. What is your schedule like? Are you going to have any free time in the next few weeks? I'd like to move forward with our plans regarding the development of a few more exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN. It's been nearly a month since we began talking about this, but if we're to move this forward we have to actually discuss it. I don't want to do this without your help. In fact most of my interest in getting this done is to help editors like you who seem to have problems with the current guidelines. Is this something that still interests you? When will you be available to answer questions like those I asked in the last post? Please don't just leave me hanging here. -Thibbs (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well while I'm waiting for word from you on some kind of timeframe I noticed that you'd performed a few more redirect "fixes" since I last asked you to stop and I can report that I agree most of them. But edits like this and this suggest further exceptions to the rule. From the first of those two links (relinking to the actual page name on a dab page), I think this brings up a good point - that we should add an exception for disambiguation pages per WP:PIPING. The second one (changing a link to a plural term into a link to the singular) looks like just another "fix" for reasons of your own. Can you explain that change? Was there a reason you decided to again violate NOTBROKEN in that case? For all I know there may be policy/guideline supporting that edit but if so then this suggests another good exception. -Thibbs (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and  claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place and second place  both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 16:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Ashley Fliehr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Providence High School


 * List of acronyms: W (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to WWF


 * Takeshi's Castle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Fuji

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Question about cleanup process
Hi TJ Spyke, I noticed that you've been cleaning up numerous articles today and I was curious how you were doing it. Is it all by hand or do you use a program? Specifically I'm curious how you check the wikilinks. Are you testing each one individually or is there a tool you have that highlights all redirects? -Thibbs (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I use WPCleaner to check articles, but there are some edits that can't be made with it (like spellchecking, typos, etc.), so I then manually edit it after (essentially, I copy and paste the results from WPCleaner, then continue editing the article).  TJ   Spyke   21:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. Is WPCleaner something that you can download from a Wikimedia site/affiliate or should I just Google it if I want to find it? -Thibbs (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here you go: WPCleaner.  TJ   Spyke   21:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm sorry to say I've reverted your edit at the Derby Stallion article yet again. The links that you are "fixing" are indeed redirect links. And per WP:NOTBROKEN, redirects within an article are not supposed to be changed so that they point to the target article instead. There are a number of reasons why this is harmful to Wikipedia and they're clearly spelled out under WP:NOTBROKEN. This has become a problem in the past with users accidentally abusing the Navigation popup tool to "fix" redirects as you're doing and the result was this page. This is actually the reason I was asking above what tool you were using. I was curious to see what other tools were being subjected to this kind of abuse. The WPCleaner talk page is filled with comments regarding users mistakenly "fixing" redirects (e.g. 1, 2, 3, and many more in the archives from 2008 and earlier). The thing is... I've already explained all of this to you in the past (see e.g. 1 and 2). And I know you are aware of this issue because you have already received a final warning on the subject. So I really don't see how what you are doing could be considered good faith editing. Your editing is contrary to the guidelines and you have been repeatedly told this and warned to stop. Normally I'd suggest trying to get the guidelines changed before carrying on in this way, but in this case from your block log it's clear to me that you've consciously decided to change matters unilaterally rather than by seeking consensus. For this reason I've requested administrative action. -Thibbs (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, you did not read NOTBROKEN correctly at all. I have not been making the kinds of edits that got me into trouble before, I have been careful to only makes ones that follow the guidelines. I am sorry that you are not a good editor and dont like others making articles better, but stop vandalizing pages by reverting good edits. I am hesitant to give you a warning, but I will. Frankly, its people like you who are driving editors away from Wikipedia and preventing so many articles from being improved. Go away.  TJ   Spyke   00:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't react like this to new editors. I react this way to editors who have been editing here for 7-odd years and are among the top 400 most prolific editors and who have received a shocking number of warnings and frank blocks including an indef block. You obviously know better than to persist in these games but yet you continue. AGF only extends so far. You clearly have no regard for community guidelines founded on consensus and are only interested in your own editorial decisions. I'm sorry that you decided to take this route. It was a very poor decision on your part. -Thibbs (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, to Derby Stallion (series) is full of unhelpful changes as per WP:NOTBROKEN.  Amalthea  09:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, I see no unhelpful edits. I will not pretend 100% of my edits have been helpful, but ask any average editor and that change is nothing but helpful. And frankly, you shouldnt drive away good editors since fewer and fewer people are editing Wikipedia now. I also notice that I only get hounded when I mass edit articles, I dont get harassed when I only edit a few articles a day.  TJ   Spyke   20:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "It is likewise unhelpful to edit visible links for no reason other than to avoid redirects." Amalthea  22:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A great majority of your NOTBROKEN violations are harmful actually. Try actually reading the guideline. You might be surprised to discover that there are at least six explicitly listed reasons not to change (bypass) redirects. One obvious one is that you are whitewashing usage stats - an activity that is at best completely pointless. But more often it's not completely harmless. It's directly harmful because it obscures the need for new articles on topics that aren't covered and it hides more appropriate and thus needed page-moves.
 * How on earth could these violations be "nothing but helpful"? I can't think of a single way that they help. Correcting incorrect titles or misspelled words or redirect like that is one thing, but how does it help anybody if you change horse breaking to horse training (to take a random example from the Derby Stallion article)? It hides the fact that there is no article on horse breaking - a clearly distinct concept from horse training and it reduces the likelihood that anyone will write an article on horse breaking. In what world does that help in any way whatsoever? At very best it's a completely pointless time-wasting activity. And it's one that you have been warned over and over and over again to stop. Does the consensus of your fellow editor on this issue really matter so little to you that you are unwilling to put an end to this distinctly non-helpful activity? Does the possibility that you may get blocked for a 24th (!!!) time mean nothing to you? I hope I'm not overreacting here, but I find your conduct in this one trivial editorial area to be truly incomprehensible. -Thibbs (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been careful to avoid those types of link changes. How is changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3" doing any harm? There is never gonna be a "Playstation 3" article, ever. And in that Derby Stallion article, changing "PlayStation" to "PlayStation (console)" IS directly helpful and needed because the latter refers to the game system called PlayStation and the former refers to the general product line. Or changing links to "Famicom" to be "Nintendo Entertainment System|Famicom", there will never be a separate Famicom article because it's just the Japanese name of the NES. Sometimes I make mistakes (like with the horse breaking one), but I see it as vandalism when editors revert the whole edit instead of just specific link changes they see as bad.  TJ   Spyke   15:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Look I recognize that apart from this one issue (and I guess the 3RR stuff from your past that I think you've mostly stopped now) you are a good editor. And I also recognize that you're human and that you may make mistakes. But seeing as how you've made so many many mistakes in this one particular area I would seriously recommend avoiding it altogether. Just skimming the cleanups you've performed since you were last unblocked, it's apparent that the large majority of the redirect "fixes" you performed were potentially harmful. And a tiny minority of them are helpful in any way.
 * Is there a reason you feel compelled to change the redirects? I assume it's not just to boost your edit count, right? But is it just because it looks ugly on WPCleaner? Or do you really think that this is somehow helpful? If you do think it is helpful then have you considered making the case to change the guidelines at WP:NOTBROKEN? Because there are only 2 listed exceptions to that guideline currently. I wouldn't say that this is a complete list of all good exceptions, though. Your example of changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3", for instance, seems to me to be correcting a misspelling (or really a mis-capitalization). And I think that this is helpful and that it should be listed as an exception to WP:NOTBROKEN.
 * Why don't you and I try to come up with some exceptions that we could propose to the community together to improve the guidelines so that you're not constantly violating them? If you could come up with a reason why changing "video arcade" to "amusement arcade" or how changing "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System" or how changing "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" helps in any way then you could certainly make that suggestion as well. This would be a much much better way of approaching the problem than just ignoring everyone's warnings and getting banned over and over, don't you think? I'd be willing to help draft some proposed changes if you're willing to engage with me and explain why you feel compelled to violate this guideline. -Thibbs (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me (and withe something like the Dragon Quest, it's because the series name in English was Dragon Warrior before the the Dragon Quest VIII. Amusement arcade and video arcade are essentially interchangeable terms like "pop" and "soda". As for Famicom, aren't we supposed to use English names of products if that is the best known name? Famicom is just the Japanese name of the NES, so I would think other WP policies supported changing them to NES). I've never bothered trying to have NOTBROKEN changed because I know from experience how hard it can be to have policies on Wikipedia changed. Maybe later today or something we can start working on this together to propose changes that seem like common sense to most people.  TJ   Spyke   16:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm encouraged by your attitude. I think we should discuss this thoroughly between us here before proposing anything so that we're clear in our arguments. It's OK if we disagree too, since we can propose changes individually to be accepted piecemeal rather than only as a single package. Anyway here are my thoughts on what you've said just above:
 * Like the term "video arcade", the other two are also examples of synonymous terms: Dragon Warrior is the North American term whereas the English term is actually Dragon Quest (the same is true for all European countries and Japan actually); Famicom is the original Japanese name for the NES. According to NOTBROKEN (point 6), the use of a synonymous redirect term provides useful information relating to usage of the term which can be considered as evidence for renaming the article. By systematically changing these links to the current non-redirect title, you are manipulating the usage statistics. As an example: it might be that the term "Dragon Quest" is better known than "Dragon Warrior", but because you'd have changed all of the "Dragon Quest" redirects into "Dragon Warrior," you would have eradicated this information and we would get a false impression that "Dragon Warrior" was the most commonly used term when in reality it was only the most commonly used because the statistics had been manipulated. If you don't like that example, try imagining the reverse. Imagine someone who called the game "Dragon Quest" trying to make the case that the article should be renamed. So first he would change all the links to redirects and then point to the incoming links as evidence that everyone calls it Dragon Quest. You can see how that would be a problem, right? I think what NOTBROKEN is saying is that it's safest if we rely on the real usage statistics by refraining from changing synonymous terms. They are synonyms, after all, so the meaning is identical, right?
 * But I think you might have a point if your central concern was consistency. There have been large discussions in the past regarding whether or not Wikipedia should preferentially use the term "Sega Genesis" or "Master Drive" for example. I'm sure the same could exist for terms from popular consumer products like "Famicom/NES" or "Dragon Quest/Warrior" as well. If there has been a community discussion where one term was decided as the preferred term then I think you could make the case that perhaps it would be a good idea to use a single term in the interest of consistency. Does that sound like it might be the core of your argument for these words? Or do you instead find a problem with NOTBROKEN's argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics?
 * Another redirect dodge I was hoping you could explain is when you changed "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games". These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN's argument that "Shortcuts or redirects to sections of articles ... should never be bypassed, as the section headings on the page may change over time [and] Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links" (point 4; emphasis and ellipses added). So you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions? -Thibbs (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi TJ Spyke. Just checking in again. What's happening now? Why has this conversation stalled? Have you had a chance to read what I just wrote above? I noticed that you've again resumed with the NOTBROKEN violations (swapping "United States of America" for "United States"). I don't think it's too much to ask that you completely refrain from this kind of edit until we've finished discussing our plans for how to present our argument at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. You are violating the guidelines when you make this kind of edit and you've been asked to stop over and over again. Please help me come up with some exceptions that we can present for consensus instead of just continuing to stubbornly violate the guidelines and hope that I'll go away. I won't. I really want to work with you here, but if I see it again I will bring it to AN/I. -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, I didnt do anything wrong with United States. It's the common name of the country and what everyone writes (hell, even the article uses the name) and I know that did NOT violate any rule. Frankly, saying that deleting two words so it uses the common name is wrong, is like saying you can't edit a article to fix a spelling mistake. Might as well freeze all editing. Did I somehow violate it in another article when I changed Major League Baseball to Major League Baseball ? Anyways, i've been busy. But im free now.  TJ   Spyke   15:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Repairing broken wikilinks is not a violation of NOTBROKEN, but changing from one synonymous term (like the official name of a country) to another synonymous term (like the common name for a country) for the same target article is definitely a violation of NOTBROKEN. I don't mean this to sound rude, but you have to accept the fact that your judgment on whether or not a redirect "fix" violates NOTBROKEN is clearly quite poor. I strongly urge you to avoid making those kinds of edits even if you are certain that you're in the right because you are obviously unable to differentiate between violations and non-violations. Anyway I'm glad to hear that you're free now and I'm eager to get to work on the exceptions. -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding Dragon Warrior/Quest, it is not true that Quest was common in European countries. The first game in the series even RELEASED in Europe was Dragon Warrior Monsters in 1999 (where it used "Warrior"), they didnt get another one until Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King (which was when Square Enix FIRST used the "Quest" name outside of Japan). So considering that for almost 20 years the only English name of the series was "Warrior", it makes sense for the ones released with the Warrior name to use that. As for exceptions to NOTBROKEN:


 * I think fixing spelling mistakes and capitalization (i.e. Playstation to PlayStation) are good ones that are not controversial.
 * Hmmm, maybe switching some to the most common name can be OK (though within the right context)
 * Sometimes things will never get an article. I.e. a character who appeared once on a TV show 20 years ago will probably never get an article as they are not notable enough, but they might have an entry in a article about characters from that show. Is it a problem to change a link to that section specifically?
 * If a product is released under one name in most of the world, shouldn't it be OK to write that as the name? I.e. NES/Famicom. Famicom is the Japanese name of the system, but they are still the same system. Doesn't it make sense to change the links to NES? It's especially ridiculous when some articles say a game was released on the NES and Famicom (implying they are different).

Maybe others, but these are off the top of my head.  TJ   Spyke   15:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All PAL versions of the main series are called "Dragon Quest," but that's quite beside the point. The point is that these are synonymous terms and "fixing" them to avoid the redirect violates NOTBROKEN point #6. Unless there has been a discussion leading to a consistency-based preference for one term over the other, the term used by the first European spinoff title has no significance whatsoever and the redirect should not be altered. But this brings me to the question I asked last week:
 * Is switching "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" (or "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System", etc.) something that you have been doing in the interest of inter-article consistency? Is that the core of your argument? Or do you simply reject NOTBROKEN's point #6 (i.e. the argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics)?
 * And as long as I'm re-asking questions from last week,...
 * Could you explain your thought process behind changing "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games"? These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN point #4 (described in last week's comment above). Do you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions?
 * Regarding your exceptions, I agree strongly with the first one (spelling & capitalization). That's definitely going into the final draft of our proposal. I also think that the alteration of redirect terms to reflect a consistent consensus-based terminology (if indeed such a consensus exists) is a good idea. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
 * The other three points you bring up are kind of confusing for me. I don't really think you've presented any argument for making them into exceptions. Basically your reasoning appears to boil down to "Let's make these into exceptions, because why not?" The problem with this is that NOTBROKEN is a consensus-based guideline. Nobody would take us seriously if we proposed exceptions to it without actually giving concrete reasons why the exceptions are needed. The answer to your "is it a problem?" and "shouldn't it be OK?" questions above would be answered by the editors at NOTBROKEN with "Yes it's a problem (see point #4), and no it's not OK (see point #6)." These are consensus-based views on those exact topics.
 * To create an exception we can't just ignore consensus. We have to find a reason that the consensus view is too broad and that in narrowly definable situations the general rules at NOTBROKEN should be excepted. Then we have to convince others based on solid reasoning. If there is no way to distinguish the area to which the rule applies from the area to which the exception applies then we have to propose knocking down part of the rules which will be a much more difficult task and will absolutely require ironclad arguments, not just "why not?" In addition to answering the questions I bulleted above, could you please try to think of specific reasons why we need (or how it would be helpful to have) an exception for common names, obscure aspects, and synonymous terms? -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again TJ Spyke. What is your schedule like? Are you going to have any free time in the next few weeks? I'd like to move forward with our plans regarding the development of a few more exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN. It's been nearly a month since we began talking about this, but if we're to move this forward we have to actually discuss it. I don't want to do this without your help. In fact most of my interest in getting this done is to help editors like you who seem to have problems with the current guidelines. Is this something that still interests you? When will you be available to answer questions like those I asked in the last post? Please don't just leave me hanging here. -Thibbs (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well while I'm waiting for word from you on some kind of timeframe I noticed that you'd performed a few more redirect "fixes" since I last asked you to stop and I can report that I agree most of them. But edits like this and this suggest further exceptions to the rule. From the first of those two links (relinking to the actual page name on a dab page), I think this brings up a good point - that we should add an exception for disambiguation pages per WP:PIPING. The second one (changing a link to a plural term into a link to the singular) looks like just another "fix" for reasons of your own. Can you explain that change? Was there a reason you decided to again violate NOTBROKEN in that case? For all I know there may be policy/guideline supporting that edit but if so then this suggests another good exception. -Thibbs (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and  claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place and second place  both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 16:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Ashley Fliehr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Providence High School


 * List of acronyms: W (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to WWF


 * Takeshi's Castle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Fuji

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Question about cleanup process
Hi TJ Spyke, I noticed that you've been cleaning up numerous articles today and I was curious how you were doing it. Is it all by hand or do you use a program? Specifically I'm curious how you check the wikilinks. Are you testing each one individually or is there a tool you have that highlights all redirects? -Thibbs (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I use WPCleaner to check articles, but there are some edits that can't be made with it (like spellchecking, typos, etc.), so I then manually edit it after (essentially, I copy and paste the results from WPCleaner, then continue editing the article).  TJ   Spyke   21:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. Is WPCleaner something that you can download from a Wikimedia site/affiliate or should I just Google it if I want to find it? -Thibbs (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here you go: WPCleaner.  TJ   Spyke   21:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm sorry to say I've reverted your edit at the Derby Stallion article yet again. The links that you are "fixing" are indeed redirect links. And per WP:NOTBROKEN, redirects within an article are not supposed to be changed so that they point to the target article instead. There are a number of reasons why this is harmful to Wikipedia and they're clearly spelled out under WP:NOTBROKEN. This has become a problem in the past with users accidentally abusing the Navigation popup tool to "fix" redirects as you're doing and the result was this page. This is actually the reason I was asking above what tool you were using. I was curious to see what other tools were being subjected to this kind of abuse. The WPCleaner talk page is filled with comments regarding users mistakenly "fixing" redirects (e.g. 1, 2, 3, and many more in the archives from 2008 and earlier). The thing is... I've already explained all of this to you in the past (see e.g. 1 and 2). And I know you are aware of this issue because you have already received a final warning on the subject. So I really don't see how what you are doing could be considered good faith editing. Your editing is contrary to the guidelines and you have been repeatedly told this and warned to stop. Normally I'd suggest trying to get the guidelines changed before carrying on in this way, but in this case from your block log it's clear to me that you've consciously decided to change matters unilaterally rather than by seeking consensus. For this reason I've requested administrative action. -Thibbs (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, you did not read NOTBROKEN correctly at all. I have not been making the kinds of edits that got me into trouble before, I have been careful to only makes ones that follow the guidelines. I am sorry that you are not a good editor and dont like others making articles better, but stop vandalizing pages by reverting good edits. I am hesitant to give you a warning, but I will. Frankly, its people like you who are driving editors away from Wikipedia and preventing so many articles from being improved. Go away.  TJ   Spyke   00:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't react like this to new editors. I react this way to editors who have been editing here for 7-odd years and are among the top 400 most prolific editors and who have received a shocking number of warnings and frank blocks including an indef block. You obviously know better than to persist in these games but yet you continue. AGF only extends so far. You clearly have no regard for community guidelines founded on consensus and are only interested in your own editorial decisions. I'm sorry that you decided to take this route. It was a very poor decision on your part. -Thibbs (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, to Derby Stallion (series) is full of unhelpful changes as per WP:NOTBROKEN.  Amalthea  09:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, I see no unhelpful edits. I will not pretend 100% of my edits have been helpful, but ask any average editor and that change is nothing but helpful. And frankly, you shouldnt drive away good editors since fewer and fewer people are editing Wikipedia now. I also notice that I only get hounded when I mass edit articles, I dont get harassed when I only edit a few articles a day.  TJ   Spyke   20:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "It is likewise unhelpful to edit visible links for no reason other than to avoid redirects." Amalthea  22:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A great majority of your NOTBROKEN violations are harmful actually. Try actually reading the guideline. You might be surprised to discover that there are at least six explicitly listed reasons not to change (bypass) redirects. One obvious one is that you are whitewashing usage stats - an activity that is at best completely pointless. But more often it's not completely harmless. It's directly harmful because it obscures the need for new articles on topics that aren't covered and it hides more appropriate and thus needed page-moves.
 * How on earth could these violations be "nothing but helpful"? I can't think of a single way that they help. Correcting incorrect titles or misspelled words or redirect like that is one thing, but how does it help anybody if you change horse breaking to horse training (to take a random example from the Derby Stallion article)? It hides the fact that there is no article on horse breaking - a clearly distinct concept from horse training and it reduces the likelihood that anyone will write an article on horse breaking. In what world does that help in any way whatsoever? At very best it's a completely pointless time-wasting activity. And it's one that you have been warned over and over and over again to stop. Does the consensus of your fellow editor on this issue really matter so little to you that you are unwilling to put an end to this distinctly non-helpful activity? Does the possibility that you may get blocked for a 24th (!!!) time mean nothing to you? I hope I'm not overreacting here, but I find your conduct in this one trivial editorial area to be truly incomprehensible. -Thibbs (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been careful to avoid those types of link changes. How is changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3" doing any harm? There is never gonna be a "Playstation 3" article, ever. And in that Derby Stallion article, changing "PlayStation" to "PlayStation (console)" IS directly helpful and needed because the latter refers to the game system called PlayStation and the former refers to the general product line. Or changing links to "Famicom" to be "Nintendo Entertainment System|Famicom", there will never be a separate Famicom article because it's just the Japanese name of the NES. Sometimes I make mistakes (like with the horse breaking one), but I see it as vandalism when editors revert the whole edit instead of just specific link changes they see as bad.  TJ   Spyke   15:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Look I recognize that apart from this one issue (and I guess the 3RR stuff from your past that I think you've mostly stopped now) you are a good editor. And I also recognize that you're human and that you may make mistakes. But seeing as how you've made so many many mistakes in this one particular area I would seriously recommend avoiding it altogether. Just skimming the cleanups you've performed since you were last unblocked, it's apparent that the large majority of the redirect "fixes" you performed were potentially harmful. And a tiny minority of them are helpful in any way.
 * Is there a reason you feel compelled to change the redirects? I assume it's not just to boost your edit count, right? But is it just because it looks ugly on WPCleaner? Or do you really think that this is somehow helpful? If you do think it is helpful then have you considered making the case to change the guidelines at WP:NOTBROKEN? Because there are only 2 listed exceptions to that guideline currently. I wouldn't say that this is a complete list of all good exceptions, though. Your example of changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3", for instance, seems to me to be correcting a misspelling (or really a mis-capitalization). And I think that this is helpful and that it should be listed as an exception to WP:NOTBROKEN.
 * Why don't you and I try to come up with some exceptions that we could propose to the community together to improve the guidelines so that you're not constantly violating them? If you could come up with a reason why changing "video arcade" to "amusement arcade" or how changing "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System" or how changing "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" helps in any way then you could certainly make that suggestion as well. This would be a much much better way of approaching the problem than just ignoring everyone's warnings and getting banned over and over, don't you think? I'd be willing to help draft some proposed changes if you're willing to engage with me and explain why you feel compelled to violate this guideline. -Thibbs (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me (and withe something like the Dragon Quest, it's because the series name in English was Dragon Warrior before the the Dragon Quest VIII. Amusement arcade and video arcade are essentially interchangeable terms like "pop" and "soda". As for Famicom, aren't we supposed to use English names of products if that is the best known name? Famicom is just the Japanese name of the NES, so I would think other WP policies supported changing them to NES). I've never bothered trying to have NOTBROKEN changed because I know from experience how hard it can be to have policies on Wikipedia changed. Maybe later today or something we can start working on this together to propose changes that seem like common sense to most people.  TJ   Spyke   16:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm encouraged by your attitude. I think we should discuss this thoroughly between us here before proposing anything so that we're clear in our arguments. It's OK if we disagree too, since we can propose changes individually to be accepted piecemeal rather than only as a single package. Anyway here are my thoughts on what you've said just above:
 * Like the term "video arcade", the other two are also examples of synonymous terms: Dragon Warrior is the North American term whereas the English term is actually Dragon Quest (the same is true for all European countries and Japan actually); Famicom is the original Japanese name for the NES. According to NOTBROKEN (point 6), the use of a synonymous redirect term provides useful information relating to usage of the term which can be considered as evidence for renaming the article. By systematically changing these links to the current non-redirect title, you are manipulating the usage statistics. As an example: it might be that the term "Dragon Quest" is better known than "Dragon Warrior", but because you'd have changed all of the "Dragon Quest" redirects into "Dragon Warrior," you would have eradicated this information and we would get a false impression that "Dragon Warrior" was the most commonly used term when in reality it was only the most commonly used because the statistics had been manipulated. If you don't like that example, try imagining the reverse. Imagine someone who called the game "Dragon Quest" trying to make the case that the article should be renamed. So first he would change all the links to redirects and then point to the incoming links as evidence that everyone calls it Dragon Quest. You can see how that would be a problem, right? I think what NOTBROKEN is saying is that it's safest if we rely on the real usage statistics by refraining from changing synonymous terms. They are synonyms, after all, so the meaning is identical, right?
 * But I think you might have a point if your central concern was consistency. There have been large discussions in the past regarding whether or not Wikipedia should preferentially use the term "Sega Genesis" or "Master Drive" for example. I'm sure the same could exist for terms from popular consumer products like "Famicom/NES" or "Dragon Quest/Warrior" as well. If there has been a community discussion where one term was decided as the preferred term then I think you could make the case that perhaps it would be a good idea to use a single term in the interest of consistency. Does that sound like it might be the core of your argument for these words? Or do you instead find a problem with NOTBROKEN's argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics?
 * Another redirect dodge I was hoping you could explain is when you changed "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games". These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN's argument that "Shortcuts or redirects to sections of articles ... should never be bypassed, as the section headings on the page may change over time [and] Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links" (point 4; emphasis and ellipses added). So you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions? -Thibbs (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi TJ Spyke. Just checking in again. What's happening now? Why has this conversation stalled? Have you had a chance to read what I just wrote above? I noticed that you've again resumed with the NOTBROKEN violations (swapping "United States of America" for "United States"). I don't think it's too much to ask that you completely refrain from this kind of edit until we've finished discussing our plans for how to present our argument at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. You are violating the guidelines when you make this kind of edit and you've been asked to stop over and over again. Please help me come up with some exceptions that we can present for consensus instead of just continuing to stubbornly violate the guidelines and hope that I'll go away. I won't. I really want to work with you here, but if I see it again I will bring it to AN/I. -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, I didnt do anything wrong with United States. It's the common name of the country and what everyone writes (hell, even the article uses the name) and I know that did NOT violate any rule. Frankly, saying that deleting two words so it uses the common name is wrong, is like saying you can't edit a article to fix a spelling mistake. Might as well freeze all editing. Did I somehow violate it in another article when I changed Major League Baseball to Major League Baseball ? Anyways, i've been busy. But im free now.  TJ   Spyke   15:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Repairing broken wikilinks is not a violation of NOTBROKEN, but changing from one synonymous term (like the official name of a country) to another synonymous term (like the common name for a country) for the same target article is definitely a violation of NOTBROKEN. I don't mean this to sound rude, but you have to accept the fact that your judgment on whether or not a redirect "fix" violates NOTBROKEN is clearly quite poor. I strongly urge you to avoid making those kinds of edits even if you are certain that you're in the right because you are obviously unable to differentiate between violations and non-violations. Anyway I'm glad to hear that you're free now and I'm eager to get to work on the exceptions. -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding Dragon Warrior/Quest, it is not true that Quest was common in European countries. The first game in the series even RELEASED in Europe was Dragon Warrior Monsters in 1999 (where it used "Warrior"), they didnt get another one until Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King (which was when Square Enix FIRST used the "Quest" name outside of Japan). So considering that for almost 20 years the only English name of the series was "Warrior", it makes sense for the ones released with the Warrior name to use that. As for exceptions to NOTBROKEN:


 * I think fixing spelling mistakes and capitalization (i.e. Playstation to PlayStation) are good ones that are not controversial.
 * Hmmm, maybe switching some to the most common name can be OK (though within the right context)
 * Sometimes things will never get an article. I.e. a character who appeared once on a TV show 20 years ago will probably never get an article as they are not notable enough, but they might have an entry in a article about characters from that show. Is it a problem to change a link to that section specifically?
 * If a product is released under one name in most of the world, shouldn't it be OK to write that as the name? I.e. NES/Famicom. Famicom is the Japanese name of the system, but they are still the same system. Doesn't it make sense to change the links to NES? It's especially ridiculous when some articles say a game was released on the NES and Famicom (implying they are different).

Maybe others, but these are off the top of my head.  TJ   Spyke   15:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All PAL versions of the main series are called "Dragon Quest," but that's quite beside the point. The point is that these are synonymous terms and "fixing" them to avoid the redirect violates NOTBROKEN point #6. Unless there has been a discussion leading to a consistency-based preference for one term over the other, the term used by the first European spinoff title has no significance whatsoever and the redirect should not be altered. But this brings me to the question I asked last week:
 * Is switching "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" (or "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System", etc.) something that you have been doing in the interest of inter-article consistency? Is that the core of your argument? Or do you simply reject NOTBROKEN's point #6 (i.e. the argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics)?
 * And as long as I'm re-asking questions from last week,...
 * Could you explain your thought process behind changing "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games"? These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN point #4 (described in last week's comment above). Do you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions?
 * Regarding your exceptions, I agree strongly with the first one (spelling & capitalization). That's definitely going into the final draft of our proposal. I also think that the alteration of redirect terms to reflect a consistent consensus-based terminology (if indeed such a consensus exists) is a good idea. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
 * The other three points you bring up are kind of confusing for me. I don't really think you've presented any argument for making them into exceptions. Basically your reasoning appears to boil down to "Let's make these into exceptions, because why not?" The problem with this is that NOTBROKEN is a consensus-based guideline. Nobody would take us seriously if we proposed exceptions to it without actually giving concrete reasons why the exceptions are needed. The answer to your "is it a problem?" and "shouldn't it be OK?" questions above would be answered by the editors at NOTBROKEN with "Yes it's a problem (see point #4), and no it's not OK (see point #6)." These are consensus-based views on those exact topics.
 * To create an exception we can't just ignore consensus. We have to find a reason that the consensus view is too broad and that in narrowly definable situations the general rules at NOTBROKEN should be excepted. Then we have to convince others based on solid reasoning. If there is no way to distinguish the area to which the rule applies from the area to which the exception applies then we have to propose knocking down part of the rules which will be a much more difficult task and will absolutely require ironclad arguments, not just "why not?" In addition to answering the questions I bulleted above, could you please try to think of specific reasons why we need (or how it would be helpful to have) an exception for common names, obscure aspects, and synonymous terms? -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again TJ Spyke. What is your schedule like? Are you going to have any free time in the next few weeks? I'd like to move forward with our plans regarding the development of a few more exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN. It's been nearly a month since we began talking about this, but if we're to move this forward we have to actually discuss it. I don't want to do this without your help. In fact most of my interest in getting this done is to help editors like you who seem to have problems with the current guidelines. Is this something that still interests you? When will you be available to answer questions like those I asked in the last post? Please don't just leave me hanging here. -Thibbs (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well while I'm waiting for word from you on some kind of timeframe I noticed that you'd performed a few more redirect "fixes" since I last asked you to stop and I can report that I agree most of them. But edits like this and this suggest further exceptions to the rule. From the first of those two links (relinking to the actual page name on a dab page), I think this brings up a good point - that we should add an exception for disambiguation pages per WP:PIPING. The second one (changing a link to a plural term into a link to the singular) looks like just another "fix" for reasons of your own. Can you explain that change? Was there a reason you decided to again violate NOTBROKEN in that case? For all I know there may be policy/guideline supporting that edit but if so then this suggests another good exception. -Thibbs (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and  claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place and second place  both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 16:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Ashley Fliehr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Providence High School


 * List of acronyms: W (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to WWF


 * Takeshi's Castle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Fuji

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Question about cleanup process
Hi TJ Spyke, I noticed that you've been cleaning up numerous articles today and I was curious how you were doing it. Is it all by hand or do you use a program? Specifically I'm curious how you check the wikilinks. Are you testing each one individually or is there a tool you have that highlights all redirects? -Thibbs (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I use WPCleaner to check articles, but there are some edits that can't be made with it (like spellchecking, typos, etc.), so I then manually edit it after (essentially, I copy and paste the results from WPCleaner, then continue editing the article).  TJ   Spyke   21:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. Is WPCleaner something that you can download from a Wikimedia site/affiliate or should I just Google it if I want to find it? -Thibbs (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here you go: WPCleaner.  TJ   Spyke   21:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm sorry to say I've reverted your edit at the Derby Stallion article yet again. The links that you are "fixing" are indeed redirect links. And per WP:NOTBROKEN, redirects within an article are not supposed to be changed so that they point to the target article instead. There are a number of reasons why this is harmful to Wikipedia and they're clearly spelled out under WP:NOTBROKEN. This has become a problem in the past with users accidentally abusing the Navigation popup tool to "fix" redirects as you're doing and the result was this page. This is actually the reason I was asking above what tool you were using. I was curious to see what other tools were being subjected to this kind of abuse. The WPCleaner talk page is filled with comments regarding users mistakenly "fixing" redirects (e.g. 1, 2, 3, and many more in the archives from 2008 and earlier). The thing is... I've already explained all of this to you in the past (see e.g. 1 and 2). And I know you are aware of this issue because you have already received a final warning on the subject. So I really don't see how what you are doing could be considered good faith editing. Your editing is contrary to the guidelines and you have been repeatedly told this and warned to stop. Normally I'd suggest trying to get the guidelines changed before carrying on in this way, but in this case from your block log it's clear to me that you've consciously decided to change matters unilaterally rather than by seeking consensus. For this reason I've requested administrative action. -Thibbs (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, you did not read NOTBROKEN correctly at all. I have not been making the kinds of edits that got me into trouble before, I have been careful to only makes ones that follow the guidelines. I am sorry that you are not a good editor and dont like others making articles better, but stop vandalizing pages by reverting good edits. I am hesitant to give you a warning, but I will. Frankly, its people like you who are driving editors away from Wikipedia and preventing so many articles from being improved. Go away.  TJ   Spyke   00:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't react like this to new editors. I react this way to editors who have been editing here for 7-odd years and are among the top 400 most prolific editors and who have received a shocking number of warnings and frank blocks including an indef block. You obviously know better than to persist in these games but yet you continue. AGF only extends so far. You clearly have no regard for community guidelines founded on consensus and are only interested in your own editorial decisions. I'm sorry that you decided to take this route. It was a very poor decision on your part. -Thibbs (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, to Derby Stallion (series) is full of unhelpful changes as per WP:NOTBROKEN.  Amalthea  09:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, I see no unhelpful edits. I will not pretend 100% of my edits have been helpful, but ask any average editor and that change is nothing but helpful. And frankly, you shouldnt drive away good editors since fewer and fewer people are editing Wikipedia now. I also notice that I only get hounded when I mass edit articles, I dont get harassed when I only edit a few articles a day.  TJ   Spyke   20:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "It is likewise unhelpful to edit visible links for no reason other than to avoid redirects." Amalthea  22:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A great majority of your NOTBROKEN violations are harmful actually. Try actually reading the guideline. You might be surprised to discover that there are at least six explicitly listed reasons not to change (bypass) redirects. One obvious one is that you are whitewashing usage stats - an activity that is at best completely pointless. But more often it's not completely harmless. It's directly harmful because it obscures the need for new articles on topics that aren't covered and it hides more appropriate and thus needed page-moves.
 * How on earth could these violations be "nothing but helpful"? I can't think of a single way that they help. Correcting incorrect titles or misspelled words or redirect like that is one thing, but how does it help anybody if you change horse breaking to horse training (to take a random example from the Derby Stallion article)? It hides the fact that there is no article on horse breaking - a clearly distinct concept from horse training and it reduces the likelihood that anyone will write an article on horse breaking. In what world does that help in any way whatsoever? At very best it's a completely pointless time-wasting activity. And it's one that you have been warned over and over and over again to stop. Does the consensus of your fellow editor on this issue really matter so little to you that you are unwilling to put an end to this distinctly non-helpful activity? Does the possibility that you may get blocked for a 24th (!!!) time mean nothing to you? I hope I'm not overreacting here, but I find your conduct in this one trivial editorial area to be truly incomprehensible. -Thibbs (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been careful to avoid those types of link changes. How is changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3" doing any harm? There is never gonna be a "Playstation 3" article, ever. And in that Derby Stallion article, changing "PlayStation" to "PlayStation (console)" IS directly helpful and needed because the latter refers to the game system called PlayStation and the former refers to the general product line. Or changing links to "Famicom" to be "Nintendo Entertainment System|Famicom", there will never be a separate Famicom article because it's just the Japanese name of the NES. Sometimes I make mistakes (like with the horse breaking one), but I see it as vandalism when editors revert the whole edit instead of just specific link changes they see as bad.  TJ   Spyke   15:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Look I recognize that apart from this one issue (and I guess the 3RR stuff from your past that I think you've mostly stopped now) you are a good editor. And I also recognize that you're human and that you may make mistakes. But seeing as how you've made so many many mistakes in this one particular area I would seriously recommend avoiding it altogether. Just skimming the cleanups you've performed since you were last unblocked, it's apparent that the large majority of the redirect "fixes" you performed were potentially harmful. And a tiny minority of them are helpful in any way.
 * Is there a reason you feel compelled to change the redirects? I assume it's not just to boost your edit count, right? But is it just because it looks ugly on WPCleaner? Or do you really think that this is somehow helpful? If you do think it is helpful then have you considered making the case to change the guidelines at WP:NOTBROKEN? Because there are only 2 listed exceptions to that guideline currently. I wouldn't say that this is a complete list of all good exceptions, though. Your example of changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3", for instance, seems to me to be correcting a misspelling (or really a mis-capitalization). And I think that this is helpful and that it should be listed as an exception to WP:NOTBROKEN.
 * Why don't you and I try to come up with some exceptions that we could propose to the community together to improve the guidelines so that you're not constantly violating them? If you could come up with a reason why changing "video arcade" to "amusement arcade" or how changing "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System" or how changing "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" helps in any way then you could certainly make that suggestion as well. This would be a much much better way of approaching the problem than just ignoring everyone's warnings and getting banned over and over, don't you think? I'd be willing to help draft some proposed changes if you're willing to engage with me and explain why you feel compelled to violate this guideline. -Thibbs (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me (and withe something like the Dragon Quest, it's because the series name in English was Dragon Warrior before the the Dragon Quest VIII. Amusement arcade and video arcade are essentially interchangeable terms like "pop" and "soda". As for Famicom, aren't we supposed to use English names of products if that is the best known name? Famicom is just the Japanese name of the NES, so I would think other WP policies supported changing them to NES). I've never bothered trying to have NOTBROKEN changed because I know from experience how hard it can be to have policies on Wikipedia changed. Maybe later today or something we can start working on this together to propose changes that seem like common sense to most people.  TJ   Spyke   16:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm encouraged by your attitude. I think we should discuss this thoroughly between us here before proposing anything so that we're clear in our arguments. It's OK if we disagree too, since we can propose changes individually to be accepted piecemeal rather than only as a single package. Anyway here are my thoughts on what you've said just above:
 * Like the term "video arcade", the other two are also examples of synonymous terms: Dragon Warrior is the North American term whereas the English term is actually Dragon Quest (the same is true for all European countries and Japan actually); Famicom is the original Japanese name for the NES. According to NOTBROKEN (point 6), the use of a synonymous redirect term provides useful information relating to usage of the term which can be considered as evidence for renaming the article. By systematically changing these links to the current non-redirect title, you are manipulating the usage statistics. As an example: it might be that the term "Dragon Quest" is better known than "Dragon Warrior", but because you'd have changed all of the "Dragon Quest" redirects into "Dragon Warrior," you would have eradicated this information and we would get a false impression that "Dragon Warrior" was the most commonly used term when in reality it was only the most commonly used because the statistics had been manipulated. If you don't like that example, try imagining the reverse. Imagine someone who called the game "Dragon Quest" trying to make the case that the article should be renamed. So first he would change all the links to redirects and then point to the incoming links as evidence that everyone calls it Dragon Quest. You can see how that would be a problem, right? I think what NOTBROKEN is saying is that it's safest if we rely on the real usage statistics by refraining from changing synonymous terms. They are synonyms, after all, so the meaning is identical, right?
 * But I think you might have a point if your central concern was consistency. There have been large discussions in the past regarding whether or not Wikipedia should preferentially use the term "Sega Genesis" or "Master Drive" for example. I'm sure the same could exist for terms from popular consumer products like "Famicom/NES" or "Dragon Quest/Warrior" as well. If there has been a community discussion where one term was decided as the preferred term then I think you could make the case that perhaps it would be a good idea to use a single term in the interest of consistency. Does that sound like it might be the core of your argument for these words? Or do you instead find a problem with NOTBROKEN's argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics?
 * Another redirect dodge I was hoping you could explain is when you changed "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games". These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN's argument that "Shortcuts or redirects to sections of articles ... should never be bypassed, as the section headings on the page may change over time [and] Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links" (point 4; emphasis and ellipses added). So you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions? -Thibbs (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi TJ Spyke. Just checking in again. What's happening now? Why has this conversation stalled? Have you had a chance to read what I just wrote above? I noticed that you've again resumed with the NOTBROKEN violations (swapping "United States of America" for "United States"). I don't think it's too much to ask that you completely refrain from this kind of edit until we've finished discussing our plans for how to present our argument at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. You are violating the guidelines when you make this kind of edit and you've been asked to stop over and over again. Please help me come up with some exceptions that we can present for consensus instead of just continuing to stubbornly violate the guidelines and hope that I'll go away. I won't. I really want to work with you here, but if I see it again I will bring it to AN/I. -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, I didnt do anything wrong with United States. It's the common name of the country and what everyone writes (hell, even the article uses the name) and I know that did NOT violate any rule. Frankly, saying that deleting two words so it uses the common name is wrong, is like saying you can't edit a article to fix a spelling mistake. Might as well freeze all editing. Did I somehow violate it in another article when I changed Major League Baseball to Major League Baseball ? Anyways, i've been busy. But im free now.  TJ   Spyke   15:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Repairing broken wikilinks is not a violation of NOTBROKEN, but changing from one synonymous term (like the official name of a country) to another synonymous term (like the common name for a country) for the same target article is definitely a violation of NOTBROKEN. I don't mean this to sound rude, but you have to accept the fact that your judgment on whether or not a redirect "fix" violates NOTBROKEN is clearly quite poor. I strongly urge you to avoid making those kinds of edits even if you are certain that you're in the right because you are obviously unable to differentiate between violations and non-violations. Anyway I'm glad to hear that you're free now and I'm eager to get to work on the exceptions. -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding Dragon Warrior/Quest, it is not true that Quest was common in European countries. The first game in the series even RELEASED in Europe was Dragon Warrior Monsters in 1999 (where it used "Warrior"), they didnt get another one until Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King (which was when Square Enix FIRST used the "Quest" name outside of Japan). So considering that for almost 20 years the only English name of the series was "Warrior", it makes sense for the ones released with the Warrior name to use that. As for exceptions to NOTBROKEN:


 * I think fixing spelling mistakes and capitalization (i.e. Playstation to PlayStation) are good ones that are not controversial.
 * Hmmm, maybe switching some to the most common name can be OK (though within the right context)
 * Sometimes things will never get an article. I.e. a character who appeared once on a TV show 20 years ago will probably never get an article as they are not notable enough, but they might have an entry in a article about characters from that show. Is it a problem to change a link to that section specifically?
 * If a product is released under one name in most of the world, shouldn't it be OK to write that as the name? I.e. NES/Famicom. Famicom is the Japanese name of the system, but they are still the same system. Doesn't it make sense to change the links to NES? It's especially ridiculous when some articles say a game was released on the NES and Famicom (implying they are different).

Maybe others, but these are off the top of my head.  TJ   Spyke   15:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All PAL versions of the main series are called "Dragon Quest," but that's quite beside the point. The point is that these are synonymous terms and "fixing" them to avoid the redirect violates NOTBROKEN point #6. Unless there has been a discussion leading to a consistency-based preference for one term over the other, the term used by the first European spinoff title has no significance whatsoever and the redirect should not be altered. But this brings me to the question I asked last week:
 * Is switching "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" (or "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System", etc.) something that you have been doing in the interest of inter-article consistency? Is that the core of your argument? Or do you simply reject NOTBROKEN's point #6 (i.e. the argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics)?
 * And as long as I'm re-asking questions from last week,...
 * Could you explain your thought process behind changing "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games"? These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN point #4 (described in last week's comment above). Do you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions?
 * Regarding your exceptions, I agree strongly with the first one (spelling & capitalization). That's definitely going into the final draft of our proposal. I also think that the alteration of redirect terms to reflect a consistent consensus-based terminology (if indeed such a consensus exists) is a good idea. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
 * The other three points you bring up are kind of confusing for me. I don't really think you've presented any argument for making them into exceptions. Basically your reasoning appears to boil down to "Let's make these into exceptions, because why not?" The problem with this is that NOTBROKEN is a consensus-based guideline. Nobody would take us seriously if we proposed exceptions to it without actually giving concrete reasons why the exceptions are needed. The answer to your "is it a problem?" and "shouldn't it be OK?" questions above would be answered by the editors at NOTBROKEN with "Yes it's a problem (see point #4), and no it's not OK (see point #6)." These are consensus-based views on those exact topics.
 * To create an exception we can't just ignore consensus. We have to find a reason that the consensus view is too broad and that in narrowly definable situations the general rules at NOTBROKEN should be excepted. Then we have to convince others based on solid reasoning. If there is no way to distinguish the area to which the rule applies from the area to which the exception applies then we have to propose knocking down part of the rules which will be a much more difficult task and will absolutely require ironclad arguments, not just "why not?" In addition to answering the questions I bulleted above, could you please try to think of specific reasons why we need (or how it would be helpful to have) an exception for common names, obscure aspects, and synonymous terms? -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again TJ Spyke. What is your schedule like? Are you going to have any free time in the next few weeks? I'd like to move forward with our plans regarding the development of a few more exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN. It's been nearly a month since we began talking about this, but if we're to move this forward we have to actually discuss it. I don't want to do this without your help. In fact most of my interest in getting this done is to help editors like you who seem to have problems with the current guidelines. Is this something that still interests you? When will you be available to answer questions like those I asked in the last post? Please don't just leave me hanging here. -Thibbs (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well while I'm waiting for word from you on some kind of timeframe I noticed that you'd performed a few more redirect "fixes" since I last asked you to stop and I can report that I agree most of them. But edits like this and this suggest further exceptions to the rule. From the first of those two links (relinking to the actual page name on a dab page), I think this brings up a good point - that we should add an exception for disambiguation pages per WP:PIPING. The second one (changing a link to a plural term into a link to the singular) looks like just another "fix" for reasons of your own. Can you explain that change? Was there a reason you decided to again violate NOTBROKEN in that case? For all I know there may be policy/guideline supporting that edit but if so then this suggests another good exception. -Thibbs (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and  claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place and second place  both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 16:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Ashley Fliehr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Providence High School


 * List of acronyms: W (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to WWF


 * Takeshi's Castle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Fuji

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Question about cleanup process
Hi TJ Spyke, I noticed that you've been cleaning up numerous articles today and I was curious how you were doing it. Is it all by hand or do you use a program? Specifically I'm curious how you check the wikilinks. Are you testing each one individually or is there a tool you have that highlights all redirects? -Thibbs (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I use WPCleaner to check articles, but there are some edits that can't be made with it (like spellchecking, typos, etc.), so I then manually edit it after (essentially, I copy and paste the results from WPCleaner, then continue editing the article).  TJ   Spyke   21:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. Is WPCleaner something that you can download from a Wikimedia site/affiliate or should I just Google it if I want to find it? -Thibbs (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here you go: WPCleaner.  TJ   Spyke   21:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm sorry to say I've reverted your edit at the Derby Stallion article yet again. The links that you are "fixing" are indeed redirect links. And per WP:NOTBROKEN, redirects within an article are not supposed to be changed so that they point to the target article instead. There are a number of reasons why this is harmful to Wikipedia and they're clearly spelled out under WP:NOTBROKEN. This has become a problem in the past with users accidentally abusing the Navigation popup tool to "fix" redirects as you're doing and the result was this page. This is actually the reason I was asking above what tool you were using. I was curious to see what other tools were being subjected to this kind of abuse. The WPCleaner talk page is filled with comments regarding users mistakenly "fixing" redirects (e.g. 1, 2, 3, and many more in the archives from 2008 and earlier). The thing is... I've already explained all of this to you in the past (see e.g. 1 and 2). And I know you are aware of this issue because you have already received a final warning on the subject. So I really don't see how what you are doing could be considered good faith editing. Your editing is contrary to the guidelines and you have been repeatedly told this and warned to stop. Normally I'd suggest trying to get the guidelines changed before carrying on in this way, but in this case from your block log it's clear to me that you've consciously decided to change matters unilaterally rather than by seeking consensus. For this reason I've requested administrative action. -Thibbs (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, you did not read NOTBROKEN correctly at all. I have not been making the kinds of edits that got me into trouble before, I have been careful to only makes ones that follow the guidelines. I am sorry that you are not a good editor and dont like others making articles better, but stop vandalizing pages by reverting good edits. I am hesitant to give you a warning, but I will. Frankly, its people like you who are driving editors away from Wikipedia and preventing so many articles from being improved. Go away.  TJ   Spyke   00:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't react like this to new editors. I react this way to editors who have been editing here for 7-odd years and are among the top 400 most prolific editors and who have received a shocking number of warnings and frank blocks including an indef block. You obviously know better than to persist in these games but yet you continue. AGF only extends so far. You clearly have no regard for community guidelines founded on consensus and are only interested in your own editorial decisions. I'm sorry that you decided to take this route. It was a very poor decision on your part. -Thibbs (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, to Derby Stallion (series) is full of unhelpful changes as per WP:NOTBROKEN.  Amalthea  09:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, I see no unhelpful edits. I will not pretend 100% of my edits have been helpful, but ask any average editor and that change is nothing but helpful. And frankly, you shouldnt drive away good editors since fewer and fewer people are editing Wikipedia now. I also notice that I only get hounded when I mass edit articles, I dont get harassed when I only edit a few articles a day.  TJ   Spyke   20:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "It is likewise unhelpful to edit visible links for no reason other than to avoid redirects." Amalthea  22:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A great majority of your NOTBROKEN violations are harmful actually. Try actually reading the guideline. You might be surprised to discover that there are at least six explicitly listed reasons not to change (bypass) redirects. One obvious one is that you are whitewashing usage stats - an activity that is at best completely pointless. But more often it's not completely harmless. It's directly harmful because it obscures the need for new articles on topics that aren't covered and it hides more appropriate and thus needed page-moves.
 * How on earth could these violations be "nothing but helpful"? I can't think of a single way that they help. Correcting incorrect titles or misspelled words or redirect like that is one thing, but how does it help anybody if you change horse breaking to horse training (to take a random example from the Derby Stallion article)? It hides the fact that there is no article on horse breaking - a clearly distinct concept from horse training and it reduces the likelihood that anyone will write an article on horse breaking. In what world does that help in any way whatsoever? At very best it's a completely pointless time-wasting activity. And it's one that you have been warned over and over and over again to stop. Does the consensus of your fellow editor on this issue really matter so little to you that you are unwilling to put an end to this distinctly non-helpful activity? Does the possibility that you may get blocked for a 24th (!!!) time mean nothing to you? I hope I'm not overreacting here, but I find your conduct in this one trivial editorial area to be truly incomprehensible. -Thibbs (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been careful to avoid those types of link changes. How is changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3" doing any harm? There is never gonna be a "Playstation 3" article, ever. And in that Derby Stallion article, changing "PlayStation" to "PlayStation (console)" IS directly helpful and needed because the latter refers to the game system called PlayStation and the former refers to the general product line. Or changing links to "Famicom" to be "Nintendo Entertainment System|Famicom", there will never be a separate Famicom article because it's just the Japanese name of the NES. Sometimes I make mistakes (like with the horse breaking one), but I see it as vandalism when editors revert the whole edit instead of just specific link changes they see as bad.  TJ   Spyke   15:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Look I recognize that apart from this one issue (and I guess the 3RR stuff from your past that I think you've mostly stopped now) you are a good editor. And I also recognize that you're human and that you may make mistakes. But seeing as how you've made so many many mistakes in this one particular area I would seriously recommend avoiding it altogether. Just skimming the cleanups you've performed since you were last unblocked, it's apparent that the large majority of the redirect "fixes" you performed were potentially harmful. And a tiny minority of them are helpful in any way.
 * Is there a reason you feel compelled to change the redirects? I assume it's not just to boost your edit count, right? But is it just because it looks ugly on WPCleaner? Or do you really think that this is somehow helpful? If you do think it is helpful then have you considered making the case to change the guidelines at WP:NOTBROKEN? Because there are only 2 listed exceptions to that guideline currently. I wouldn't say that this is a complete list of all good exceptions, though. Your example of changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3", for instance, seems to me to be correcting a misspelling (or really a mis-capitalization). And I think that this is helpful and that it should be listed as an exception to WP:NOTBROKEN.
 * Why don't you and I try to come up with some exceptions that we could propose to the community together to improve the guidelines so that you're not constantly violating them? If you could come up with a reason why changing "video arcade" to "amusement arcade" or how changing "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System" or how changing "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" helps in any way then you could certainly make that suggestion as well. This would be a much much better way of approaching the problem than just ignoring everyone's warnings and getting banned over and over, don't you think? I'd be willing to help draft some proposed changes if you're willing to engage with me and explain why you feel compelled to violate this guideline. -Thibbs (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me (and withe something like the Dragon Quest, it's because the series name in English was Dragon Warrior before the the Dragon Quest VIII. Amusement arcade and video arcade are essentially interchangeable terms like "pop" and "soda". As for Famicom, aren't we supposed to use English names of products if that is the best known name? Famicom is just the Japanese name of the NES, so I would think other WP policies supported changing them to NES). I've never bothered trying to have NOTBROKEN changed because I know from experience how hard it can be to have policies on Wikipedia changed. Maybe later today or something we can start working on this together to propose changes that seem like common sense to most people.  TJ   Spyke   16:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm encouraged by your attitude. I think we should discuss this thoroughly between us here before proposing anything so that we're clear in our arguments. It's OK if we disagree too, since we can propose changes individually to be accepted piecemeal rather than only as a single package. Anyway here are my thoughts on what you've said just above:
 * Like the term "video arcade", the other two are also examples of synonymous terms: Dragon Warrior is the North American term whereas the English term is actually Dragon Quest (the same is true for all European countries and Japan actually); Famicom is the original Japanese name for the NES. According to NOTBROKEN (point 6), the use of a synonymous redirect term provides useful information relating to usage of the term which can be considered as evidence for renaming the article. By systematically changing these links to the current non-redirect title, you are manipulating the usage statistics. As an example: it might be that the term "Dragon Quest" is better known than "Dragon Warrior", but because you'd have changed all of the "Dragon Quest" redirects into "Dragon Warrior," you would have eradicated this information and we would get a false impression that "Dragon Warrior" was the most commonly used term when in reality it was only the most commonly used because the statistics had been manipulated. If you don't like that example, try imagining the reverse. Imagine someone who called the game "Dragon Quest" trying to make the case that the article should be renamed. So first he would change all the links to redirects and then point to the incoming links as evidence that everyone calls it Dragon Quest. You can see how that would be a problem, right? I think what NOTBROKEN is saying is that it's safest if we rely on the real usage statistics by refraining from changing synonymous terms. They are synonyms, after all, so the meaning is identical, right?
 * But I think you might have a point if your central concern was consistency. There have been large discussions in the past regarding whether or not Wikipedia should preferentially use the term "Sega Genesis" or "Master Drive" for example. I'm sure the same could exist for terms from popular consumer products like "Famicom/NES" or "Dragon Quest/Warrior" as well. If there has been a community discussion where one term was decided as the preferred term then I think you could make the case that perhaps it would be a good idea to use a single term in the interest of consistency. Does that sound like it might be the core of your argument for these words? Or do you instead find a problem with NOTBROKEN's argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics?
 * Another redirect dodge I was hoping you could explain is when you changed "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games". These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN's argument that "Shortcuts or redirects to sections of articles ... should never be bypassed, as the section headings on the page may change over time [and] Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links" (point 4; emphasis and ellipses added). So you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions? -Thibbs (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi TJ Spyke. Just checking in again. What's happening now? Why has this conversation stalled? Have you had a chance to read what I just wrote above? I noticed that you've again resumed with the NOTBROKEN violations (swapping "United States of America" for "United States"). I don't think it's too much to ask that you completely refrain from this kind of edit until we've finished discussing our plans for how to present our argument at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. You are violating the guidelines when you make this kind of edit and you've been asked to stop over and over again. Please help me come up with some exceptions that we can present for consensus instead of just continuing to stubbornly violate the guidelines and hope that I'll go away. I won't. I really want to work with you here, but if I see it again I will bring it to AN/I. -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, I didnt do anything wrong with United States. It's the common name of the country and what everyone writes (hell, even the article uses the name) and I know that did NOT violate any rule. Frankly, saying that deleting two words so it uses the common name is wrong, is like saying you can't edit a article to fix a spelling mistake. Might as well freeze all editing. Did I somehow violate it in another article when I changed Major League Baseball to Major League Baseball ? Anyways, i've been busy. But im free now.  TJ   Spyke   15:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Repairing broken wikilinks is not a violation of NOTBROKEN, but changing from one synonymous term (like the official name of a country) to another synonymous term (like the common name for a country) for the same target article is definitely a violation of NOTBROKEN. I don't mean this to sound rude, but you have to accept the fact that your judgment on whether or not a redirect "fix" violates NOTBROKEN is clearly quite poor. I strongly urge you to avoid making those kinds of edits even if you are certain that you're in the right because you are obviously unable to differentiate between violations and non-violations. Anyway I'm glad to hear that you're free now and I'm eager to get to work on the exceptions. -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding Dragon Warrior/Quest, it is not true that Quest was common in European countries. The first game in the series even RELEASED in Europe was Dragon Warrior Monsters in 1999 (where it used "Warrior"), they didnt get another one until Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King (which was when Square Enix FIRST used the "Quest" name outside of Japan). So considering that for almost 20 years the only English name of the series was "Warrior", it makes sense for the ones released with the Warrior name to use that. As for exceptions to NOTBROKEN:


 * I think fixing spelling mistakes and capitalization (i.e. Playstation to PlayStation) are good ones that are not controversial.
 * Hmmm, maybe switching some to the most common name can be OK (though within the right context)
 * Sometimes things will never get an article. I.e. a character who appeared once on a TV show 20 years ago will probably never get an article as they are not notable enough, but they might have an entry in a article about characters from that show. Is it a problem to change a link to that section specifically?
 * If a product is released under one name in most of the world, shouldn't it be OK to write that as the name? I.e. NES/Famicom. Famicom is the Japanese name of the system, but they are still the same system. Doesn't it make sense to change the links to NES? It's especially ridiculous when some articles say a game was released on the NES and Famicom (implying they are different).

Maybe others, but these are off the top of my head.  TJ   Spyke   15:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All PAL versions of the main series are called "Dragon Quest," but that's quite beside the point. The point is that these are synonymous terms and "fixing" them to avoid the redirect violates NOTBROKEN point #6. Unless there has been a discussion leading to a consistency-based preference for one term over the other, the term used by the first European spinoff title has no significance whatsoever and the redirect should not be altered. But this brings me to the question I asked last week:
 * Is switching "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" (or "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System", etc.) something that you have been doing in the interest of inter-article consistency? Is that the core of your argument? Or do you simply reject NOTBROKEN's point #6 (i.e. the argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics)?
 * And as long as I'm re-asking questions from last week,...
 * Could you explain your thought process behind changing "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games"? These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN point #4 (described in last week's comment above). Do you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions?
 * Regarding your exceptions, I agree strongly with the first one (spelling & capitalization). That's definitely going into the final draft of our proposal. I also think that the alteration of redirect terms to reflect a consistent consensus-based terminology (if indeed such a consensus exists) is a good idea. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
 * The other three points you bring up are kind of confusing for me. I don't really think you've presented any argument for making them into exceptions. Basically your reasoning appears to boil down to "Let's make these into exceptions, because why not?" The problem with this is that NOTBROKEN is a consensus-based guideline. Nobody would take us seriously if we proposed exceptions to it without actually giving concrete reasons why the exceptions are needed. The answer to your "is it a problem?" and "shouldn't it be OK?" questions above would be answered by the editors at NOTBROKEN with "Yes it's a problem (see point #4), and no it's not OK (see point #6)." These are consensus-based views on those exact topics.
 * To create an exception we can't just ignore consensus. We have to find a reason that the consensus view is too broad and that in narrowly definable situations the general rules at NOTBROKEN should be excepted. Then we have to convince others based on solid reasoning. If there is no way to distinguish the area to which the rule applies from the area to which the exception applies then we have to propose knocking down part of the rules which will be a much more difficult task and will absolutely require ironclad arguments, not just "why not?" In addition to answering the questions I bulleted above, could you please try to think of specific reasons why we need (or how it would be helpful to have) an exception for common names, obscure aspects, and synonymous terms? -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again TJ Spyke. What is your schedule like? Are you going to have any free time in the next few weeks? I'd like to move forward with our plans regarding the development of a few more exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN. It's been nearly a month since we began talking about this, but if we're to move this forward we have to actually discuss it. I don't want to do this without your help. In fact most of my interest in getting this done is to help editors like you who seem to have problems with the current guidelines. Is this something that still interests you? When will you be available to answer questions like those I asked in the last post? Please don't just leave me hanging here. -Thibbs (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well while I'm waiting for word from you on some kind of timeframe I noticed that you'd performed a few more redirect "fixes" since I last asked you to stop and I can report that I agree most of them. But edits like this and this suggest further exceptions to the rule. From the first of those two links (relinking to the actual page name on a dab page), I think this brings up a good point - that we should add an exception for disambiguation pages per WP:PIPING. The second one (changing a link to a plural term into a link to the singular) looks like just another "fix" for reasons of your own. Can you explain that change? Was there a reason you decided to again violate NOTBROKEN in that case? For all I know there may be policy/guideline supporting that edit but if so then this suggests another good exception. -Thibbs (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and  claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place and second place  both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 16:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Ashley Fliehr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Providence High School


 * List of acronyms: W (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to WWF


 * Takeshi's Castle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Fuji

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Question about cleanup process
Hi TJ Spyke, I noticed that you've been cleaning up numerous articles today and I was curious how you were doing it. Is it all by hand or do you use a program? Specifically I'm curious how you check the wikilinks. Are you testing each one individually or is there a tool you have that highlights all redirects? -Thibbs (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I use WPCleaner to check articles, but there are some edits that can't be made with it (like spellchecking, typos, etc.), so I then manually edit it after (essentially, I copy and paste the results from WPCleaner, then continue editing the article).  TJ   Spyke   21:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. Is WPCleaner something that you can download from a Wikimedia site/affiliate or should I just Google it if I want to find it? -Thibbs (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here you go: WPCleaner.  TJ   Spyke   21:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm sorry to say I've reverted your edit at the Derby Stallion article yet again. The links that you are "fixing" are indeed redirect links. And per WP:NOTBROKEN, redirects within an article are not supposed to be changed so that they point to the target article instead. There are a number of reasons why this is harmful to Wikipedia and they're clearly spelled out under WP:NOTBROKEN. This has become a problem in the past with users accidentally abusing the Navigation popup tool to "fix" redirects as you're doing and the result was this page. This is actually the reason I was asking above what tool you were using. I was curious to see what other tools were being subjected to this kind of abuse. The WPCleaner talk page is filled with comments regarding users mistakenly "fixing" redirects (e.g. 1, 2, 3, and many more in the archives from 2008 and earlier). The thing is... I've already explained all of this to you in the past (see e.g. 1 and 2). And I know you are aware of this issue because you have already received a final warning on the subject. So I really don't see how what you are doing could be considered good faith editing. Your editing is contrary to the guidelines and you have been repeatedly told this and warned to stop. Normally I'd suggest trying to get the guidelines changed before carrying on in this way, but in this case from your block log it's clear to me that you've consciously decided to change matters unilaterally rather than by seeking consensus. For this reason I've requested administrative action. -Thibbs (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, you did not read NOTBROKEN correctly at all. I have not been making the kinds of edits that got me into trouble before, I have been careful to only makes ones that follow the guidelines. I am sorry that you are not a good editor and dont like others making articles better, but stop vandalizing pages by reverting good edits. I am hesitant to give you a warning, but I will. Frankly, its people like you who are driving editors away from Wikipedia and preventing so many articles from being improved. Go away.  TJ   Spyke   00:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't react like this to new editors. I react this way to editors who have been editing here for 7-odd years and are among the top 400 most prolific editors and who have received a shocking number of warnings and frank blocks including an indef block. You obviously know better than to persist in these games but yet you continue. AGF only extends so far. You clearly have no regard for community guidelines founded on consensus and are only interested in your own editorial decisions. I'm sorry that you decided to take this route. It was a very poor decision on your part. -Thibbs (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, to Derby Stallion (series) is full of unhelpful changes as per WP:NOTBROKEN.  Amalthea  09:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, I see no unhelpful edits. I will not pretend 100% of my edits have been helpful, but ask any average editor and that change is nothing but helpful. And frankly, you shouldnt drive away good editors since fewer and fewer people are editing Wikipedia now. I also notice that I only get hounded when I mass edit articles, I dont get harassed when I only edit a few articles a day.  TJ   Spyke   20:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "It is likewise unhelpful to edit visible links for no reason other than to avoid redirects." Amalthea  22:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A great majority of your NOTBROKEN violations are harmful actually. Try actually reading the guideline. You might be surprised to discover that there are at least six explicitly listed reasons not to change (bypass) redirects. One obvious one is that you are whitewashing usage stats - an activity that is at best completely pointless. But more often it's not completely harmless. It's directly harmful because it obscures the need for new articles on topics that aren't covered and it hides more appropriate and thus needed page-moves.
 * How on earth could these violations be "nothing but helpful"? I can't think of a single way that they help. Correcting incorrect titles or misspelled words or redirect like that is one thing, but how does it help anybody if you change horse breaking to horse training (to take a random example from the Derby Stallion article)? It hides the fact that there is no article on horse breaking - a clearly distinct concept from horse training and it reduces the likelihood that anyone will write an article on horse breaking. In what world does that help in any way whatsoever? At very best it's a completely pointless time-wasting activity. And it's one that you have been warned over and over and over again to stop. Does the consensus of your fellow editor on this issue really matter so little to you that you are unwilling to put an end to this distinctly non-helpful activity? Does the possibility that you may get blocked for a 24th (!!!) time mean nothing to you? I hope I'm not overreacting here, but I find your conduct in this one trivial editorial area to be truly incomprehensible. -Thibbs (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been careful to avoid those types of link changes. How is changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3" doing any harm? There is never gonna be a "Playstation 3" article, ever. And in that Derby Stallion article, changing "PlayStation" to "PlayStation (console)" IS directly helpful and needed because the latter refers to the game system called PlayStation and the former refers to the general product line. Or changing links to "Famicom" to be "Nintendo Entertainment System|Famicom", there will never be a separate Famicom article because it's just the Japanese name of the NES. Sometimes I make mistakes (like with the horse breaking one), but I see it as vandalism when editors revert the whole edit instead of just specific link changes they see as bad.  TJ   Spyke   15:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Look I recognize that apart from this one issue (and I guess the 3RR stuff from your past that I think you've mostly stopped now) you are a good editor. And I also recognize that you're human and that you may make mistakes. But seeing as how you've made so many many mistakes in this one particular area I would seriously recommend avoiding it altogether. Just skimming the cleanups you've performed since you were last unblocked, it's apparent that the large majority of the redirect "fixes" you performed were potentially harmful. And a tiny minority of them are helpful in any way.
 * Is there a reason you feel compelled to change the redirects? I assume it's not just to boost your edit count, right? But is it just because it looks ugly on WPCleaner? Or do you really think that this is somehow helpful? If you do think it is helpful then have you considered making the case to change the guidelines at WP:NOTBROKEN? Because there are only 2 listed exceptions to that guideline currently. I wouldn't say that this is a complete list of all good exceptions, though. Your example of changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3", for instance, seems to me to be correcting a misspelling (or really a mis-capitalization). And I think that this is helpful and that it should be listed as an exception to WP:NOTBROKEN.
 * Why don't you and I try to come up with some exceptions that we could propose to the community together to improve the guidelines so that you're not constantly violating them? If you could come up with a reason why changing "video arcade" to "amusement arcade" or how changing "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System" or how changing "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" helps in any way then you could certainly make that suggestion as well. This would be a much much better way of approaching the problem than just ignoring everyone's warnings and getting banned over and over, don't you think? I'd be willing to help draft some proposed changes if you're willing to engage with me and explain why you feel compelled to violate this guideline. -Thibbs (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me (and withe something like the Dragon Quest, it's because the series name in English was Dragon Warrior before the the Dragon Quest VIII. Amusement arcade and video arcade are essentially interchangeable terms like "pop" and "soda". As for Famicom, aren't we supposed to use English names of products if that is the best known name? Famicom is just the Japanese name of the NES, so I would think other WP policies supported changing them to NES). I've never bothered trying to have NOTBROKEN changed because I know from experience how hard it can be to have policies on Wikipedia changed. Maybe later today or something we can start working on this together to propose changes that seem like common sense to most people.  TJ   Spyke   16:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm encouraged by your attitude. I think we should discuss this thoroughly between us here before proposing anything so that we're clear in our arguments. It's OK if we disagree too, since we can propose changes individually to be accepted piecemeal rather than only as a single package. Anyway here are my thoughts on what you've said just above:
 * Like the term "video arcade", the other two are also examples of synonymous terms: Dragon Warrior is the North American term whereas the English term is actually Dragon Quest (the same is true for all European countries and Japan actually); Famicom is the original Japanese name for the NES. According to NOTBROKEN (point 6), the use of a synonymous redirect term provides useful information relating to usage of the term which can be considered as evidence for renaming the article. By systematically changing these links to the current non-redirect title, you are manipulating the usage statistics. As an example: it might be that the term "Dragon Quest" is better known than "Dragon Warrior", but because you'd have changed all of the "Dragon Quest" redirects into "Dragon Warrior," you would have eradicated this information and we would get a false impression that "Dragon Warrior" was the most commonly used term when in reality it was only the most commonly used because the statistics had been manipulated. If you don't like that example, try imagining the reverse. Imagine someone who called the game "Dragon Quest" trying to make the case that the article should be renamed. So first he would change all the links to redirects and then point to the incoming links as evidence that everyone calls it Dragon Quest. You can see how that would be a problem, right? I think what NOTBROKEN is saying is that it's safest if we rely on the real usage statistics by refraining from changing synonymous terms. They are synonyms, after all, so the meaning is identical, right?
 * But I think you might have a point if your central concern was consistency. There have been large discussions in the past regarding whether or not Wikipedia should preferentially use the term "Sega Genesis" or "Master Drive" for example. I'm sure the same could exist for terms from popular consumer products like "Famicom/NES" or "Dragon Quest/Warrior" as well. If there has been a community discussion where one term was decided as the preferred term then I think you could make the case that perhaps it would be a good idea to use a single term in the interest of consistency. Does that sound like it might be the core of your argument for these words? Or do you instead find a problem with NOTBROKEN's argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics?
 * Another redirect dodge I was hoping you could explain is when you changed "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games". These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN's argument that "Shortcuts or redirects to sections of articles ... should never be bypassed, as the section headings on the page may change over time [and] Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links" (point 4; emphasis and ellipses added). So you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions? -Thibbs (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi TJ Spyke. Just checking in again. What's happening now? Why has this conversation stalled? Have you had a chance to read what I just wrote above? I noticed that you've again resumed with the NOTBROKEN violations (swapping "United States of America" for "United States"). I don't think it's too much to ask that you completely refrain from this kind of edit until we've finished discussing our plans for how to present our argument at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. You are violating the guidelines when you make this kind of edit and you've been asked to stop over and over again. Please help me come up with some exceptions that we can present for consensus instead of just continuing to stubbornly violate the guidelines and hope that I'll go away. I won't. I really want to work with you here, but if I see it again I will bring it to AN/I. -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, I didnt do anything wrong with United States. It's the common name of the country and what everyone writes (hell, even the article uses the name) and I know that did NOT violate any rule. Frankly, saying that deleting two words so it uses the common name is wrong, is like saying you can't edit a article to fix a spelling mistake. Might as well freeze all editing. Did I somehow violate it in another article when I changed Major League Baseball to Major League Baseball ? Anyways, i've been busy. But im free now.  TJ   Spyke   15:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Repairing broken wikilinks is not a violation of NOTBROKEN, but changing from one synonymous term (like the official name of a country) to another synonymous term (like the common name for a country) for the same target article is definitely a violation of NOTBROKEN. I don't mean this to sound rude, but you have to accept the fact that your judgment on whether or not a redirect "fix" violates NOTBROKEN is clearly quite poor. I strongly urge you to avoid making those kinds of edits even if you are certain that you're in the right because you are obviously unable to differentiate between violations and non-violations. Anyway I'm glad to hear that you're free now and I'm eager to get to work on the exceptions. -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding Dragon Warrior/Quest, it is not true that Quest was common in European countries. The first game in the series even RELEASED in Europe was Dragon Warrior Monsters in 1999 (where it used "Warrior"), they didnt get another one until Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King (which was when Square Enix FIRST used the "Quest" name outside of Japan). So considering that for almost 20 years the only English name of the series was "Warrior", it makes sense for the ones released with the Warrior name to use that. As for exceptions to NOTBROKEN:


 * I think fixing spelling mistakes and capitalization (i.e. Playstation to PlayStation) are good ones that are not controversial.
 * Hmmm, maybe switching some to the most common name can be OK (though within the right context)
 * Sometimes things will never get an article. I.e. a character who appeared once on a TV show 20 years ago will probably never get an article as they are not notable enough, but they might have an entry in a article about characters from that show. Is it a problem to change a link to that section specifically?
 * If a product is released under one name in most of the world, shouldn't it be OK to write that as the name? I.e. NES/Famicom. Famicom is the Japanese name of the system, but they are still the same system. Doesn't it make sense to change the links to NES? It's especially ridiculous when some articles say a game was released on the NES and Famicom (implying they are different).

Maybe others, but these are off the top of my head.  TJ   Spyke   15:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All PAL versions of the main series are called "Dragon Quest," but that's quite beside the point. The point is that these are synonymous terms and "fixing" them to avoid the redirect violates NOTBROKEN point #6. Unless there has been a discussion leading to a consistency-based preference for one term over the other, the term used by the first European spinoff title has no significance whatsoever and the redirect should not be altered. But this brings me to the question I asked last week:
 * Is switching "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" (or "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System", etc.) something that you have been doing in the interest of inter-article consistency? Is that the core of your argument? Or do you simply reject NOTBROKEN's point #6 (i.e. the argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics)?
 * And as long as I'm re-asking questions from last week,...
 * Could you explain your thought process behind changing "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games"? These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN point #4 (described in last week's comment above). Do you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions?
 * Regarding your exceptions, I agree strongly with the first one (spelling & capitalization). That's definitely going into the final draft of our proposal. I also think that the alteration of redirect terms to reflect a consistent consensus-based terminology (if indeed such a consensus exists) is a good idea. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
 * The other three points you bring up are kind of confusing for me. I don't really think you've presented any argument for making them into exceptions. Basically your reasoning appears to boil down to "Let's make these into exceptions, because why not?" The problem with this is that NOTBROKEN is a consensus-based guideline. Nobody would take us seriously if we proposed exceptions to it without actually giving concrete reasons why the exceptions are needed. The answer to your "is it a problem?" and "shouldn't it be OK?" questions above would be answered by the editors at NOTBROKEN with "Yes it's a problem (see point #4), and no it's not OK (see point #6)." These are consensus-based views on those exact topics.
 * To create an exception we can't just ignore consensus. We have to find a reason that the consensus view is too broad and that in narrowly definable situations the general rules at NOTBROKEN should be excepted. Then we have to convince others based on solid reasoning. If there is no way to distinguish the area to which the rule applies from the area to which the exception applies then we have to propose knocking down part of the rules which will be a much more difficult task and will absolutely require ironclad arguments, not just "why not?" In addition to answering the questions I bulleted above, could you please try to think of specific reasons why we need (or how it would be helpful to have) an exception for common names, obscure aspects, and synonymous terms? -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again TJ Spyke. What is your schedule like? Are you going to have any free time in the next few weeks? I'd like to move forward with our plans regarding the development of a few more exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN. It's been nearly a month since we began talking about this, but if we're to move this forward we have to actually discuss it. I don't want to do this without your help. In fact most of my interest in getting this done is to help editors like you who seem to have problems with the current guidelines. Is this something that still interests you? When will you be available to answer questions like those I asked in the last post? Please don't just leave me hanging here. -Thibbs (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well while I'm waiting for word from you on some kind of timeframe I noticed that you'd performed a few more redirect "fixes" since I last asked you to stop and I can report that I agree most of them. But edits like this and this suggest further exceptions to the rule. From the first of those two links (relinking to the actual page name on a dab page), I think this brings up a good point - that we should add an exception for disambiguation pages per WP:PIPING. The second one (changing a link to a plural term into a link to the singular) looks like just another "fix" for reasons of your own. Can you explain that change? Was there a reason you decided to again violate NOTBROKEN in that case? For all I know there may be policy/guideline supporting that edit but if so then this suggests another good exception. -Thibbs (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and  claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place and second place  both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 16:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Ashley Fliehr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Providence High School


 * List of acronyms: W (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to WWF


 * Takeshi's Castle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Fuji

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Question about cleanup process
Hi TJ Spyke, I noticed that you've been cleaning up numerous articles today and I was curious how you were doing it. Is it all by hand or do you use a program? Specifically I'm curious how you check the wikilinks. Are you testing each one individually or is there a tool you have that highlights all redirects? -Thibbs (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I use WPCleaner to check articles, but there are some edits that can't be made with it (like spellchecking, typos, etc.), so I then manually edit it after (essentially, I copy and paste the results from WPCleaner, then continue editing the article).  TJ   Spyke   21:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. Is WPCleaner something that you can download from a Wikimedia site/affiliate or should I just Google it if I want to find it? -Thibbs (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here you go: WPCleaner.  TJ   Spyke   21:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm sorry to say I've reverted your edit at the Derby Stallion article yet again. The links that you are "fixing" are indeed redirect links. And per WP:NOTBROKEN, redirects within an article are not supposed to be changed so that they point to the target article instead. There are a number of reasons why this is harmful to Wikipedia and they're clearly spelled out under WP:NOTBROKEN. This has become a problem in the past with users accidentally abusing the Navigation popup tool to "fix" redirects as you're doing and the result was this page. This is actually the reason I was asking above what tool you were using. I was curious to see what other tools were being subjected to this kind of abuse. The WPCleaner talk page is filled with comments regarding users mistakenly "fixing" redirects (e.g. 1, 2, 3, and many more in the archives from 2008 and earlier). The thing is... I've already explained all of this to you in the past (see e.g. 1 and 2). And I know you are aware of this issue because you have already received a final warning on the subject. So I really don't see how what you are doing could be considered good faith editing. Your editing is contrary to the guidelines and you have been repeatedly told this and warned to stop. Normally I'd suggest trying to get the guidelines changed before carrying on in this way, but in this case from your block log it's clear to me that you've consciously decided to change matters unilaterally rather than by seeking consensus. For this reason I've requested administrative action. -Thibbs (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, you did not read NOTBROKEN correctly at all. I have not been making the kinds of edits that got me into trouble before, I have been careful to only makes ones that follow the guidelines. I am sorry that you are not a good editor and dont like others making articles better, but stop vandalizing pages by reverting good edits. I am hesitant to give you a warning, but I will. Frankly, its people like you who are driving editors away from Wikipedia and preventing so many articles from being improved. Go away.  TJ   Spyke   00:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't react like this to new editors. I react this way to editors who have been editing here for 7-odd years and are among the top 400 most prolific editors and who have received a shocking number of warnings and frank blocks including an indef block. You obviously know better than to persist in these games but yet you continue. AGF only extends so far. You clearly have no regard for community guidelines founded on consensus and are only interested in your own editorial decisions. I'm sorry that you decided to take this route. It was a very poor decision on your part. -Thibbs (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, to Derby Stallion (series) is full of unhelpful changes as per WP:NOTBROKEN.  Amalthea  09:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, I see no unhelpful edits. I will not pretend 100% of my edits have been helpful, but ask any average editor and that change is nothing but helpful. And frankly, you shouldnt drive away good editors since fewer and fewer people are editing Wikipedia now. I also notice that I only get hounded when I mass edit articles, I dont get harassed when I only edit a few articles a day.  TJ   Spyke   20:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "It is likewise unhelpful to edit visible links for no reason other than to avoid redirects." Amalthea  22:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A great majority of your NOTBROKEN violations are harmful actually. Try actually reading the guideline. You might be surprised to discover that there are at least six explicitly listed reasons not to change (bypass) redirects. One obvious one is that you are whitewashing usage stats - an activity that is at best completely pointless. But more often it's not completely harmless. It's directly harmful because it obscures the need for new articles on topics that aren't covered and it hides more appropriate and thus needed page-moves.
 * How on earth could these violations be "nothing but helpful"? I can't think of a single way that they help. Correcting incorrect titles or misspelled words or redirect like that is one thing, but how does it help anybody if you change horse breaking to horse training (to take a random example from the Derby Stallion article)? It hides the fact that there is no article on horse breaking - a clearly distinct concept from horse training and it reduces the likelihood that anyone will write an article on horse breaking. In what world does that help in any way whatsoever? At very best it's a completely pointless time-wasting activity. And it's one that you have been warned over and over and over again to stop. Does the consensus of your fellow editor on this issue really matter so little to you that you are unwilling to put an end to this distinctly non-helpful activity? Does the possibility that you may get blocked for a 24th (!!!) time mean nothing to you? I hope I'm not overreacting here, but I find your conduct in this one trivial editorial area to be truly incomprehensible. -Thibbs (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been careful to avoid those types of link changes. How is changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3" doing any harm? There is never gonna be a "Playstation 3" article, ever. And in that Derby Stallion article, changing "PlayStation" to "PlayStation (console)" IS directly helpful and needed because the latter refers to the game system called PlayStation and the former refers to the general product line. Or changing links to "Famicom" to be "Nintendo Entertainment System|Famicom", there will never be a separate Famicom article because it's just the Japanese name of the NES. Sometimes I make mistakes (like with the horse breaking one), but I see it as vandalism when editors revert the whole edit instead of just specific link changes they see as bad.  TJ   Spyke   15:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Look I recognize that apart from this one issue (and I guess the 3RR stuff from your past that I think you've mostly stopped now) you are a good editor. And I also recognize that you're human and that you may make mistakes. But seeing as how you've made so many many mistakes in this one particular area I would seriously recommend avoiding it altogether. Just skimming the cleanups you've performed since you were last unblocked, it's apparent that the large majority of the redirect "fixes" you performed were potentially harmful. And a tiny minority of them are helpful in any way.
 * Is there a reason you feel compelled to change the redirects? I assume it's not just to boost your edit count, right? But is it just because it looks ugly on WPCleaner? Or do you really think that this is somehow helpful? If you do think it is helpful then have you considered making the case to change the guidelines at WP:NOTBROKEN? Because there are only 2 listed exceptions to that guideline currently. I wouldn't say that this is a complete list of all good exceptions, though. Your example of changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3", for instance, seems to me to be correcting a misspelling (or really a mis-capitalization). And I think that this is helpful and that it should be listed as an exception to WP:NOTBROKEN.
 * Why don't you and I try to come up with some exceptions that we could propose to the community together to improve the guidelines so that you're not constantly violating them? If you could come up with a reason why changing "video arcade" to "amusement arcade" or how changing "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System" or how changing "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" helps in any way then you could certainly make that suggestion as well. This would be a much much better way of approaching the problem than just ignoring everyone's warnings and getting banned over and over, don't you think? I'd be willing to help draft some proposed changes if you're willing to engage with me and explain why you feel compelled to violate this guideline. -Thibbs (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me (and withe something like the Dragon Quest, it's because the series name in English was Dragon Warrior before the the Dragon Quest VIII. Amusement arcade and video arcade are essentially interchangeable terms like "pop" and "soda". As for Famicom, aren't we supposed to use English names of products if that is the best known name? Famicom is just the Japanese name of the NES, so I would think other WP policies supported changing them to NES). I've never bothered trying to have NOTBROKEN changed because I know from experience how hard it can be to have policies on Wikipedia changed. Maybe later today or something we can start working on this together to propose changes that seem like common sense to most people.  TJ   Spyke   16:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm encouraged by your attitude. I think we should discuss this thoroughly between us here before proposing anything so that we're clear in our arguments. It's OK if we disagree too, since we can propose changes individually to be accepted piecemeal rather than only as a single package. Anyway here are my thoughts on what you've said just above:
 * Like the term "video arcade", the other two are also examples of synonymous terms: Dragon Warrior is the North American term whereas the English term is actually Dragon Quest (the same is true for all European countries and Japan actually); Famicom is the original Japanese name for the NES. According to NOTBROKEN (point 6), the use of a synonymous redirect term provides useful information relating to usage of the term which can be considered as evidence for renaming the article. By systematically changing these links to the current non-redirect title, you are manipulating the usage statistics. As an example: it might be that the term "Dragon Quest" is better known than "Dragon Warrior", but because you'd have changed all of the "Dragon Quest" redirects into "Dragon Warrior," you would have eradicated this information and we would get a false impression that "Dragon Warrior" was the most commonly used term when in reality it was only the most commonly used because the statistics had been manipulated. If you don't like that example, try imagining the reverse. Imagine someone who called the game "Dragon Quest" trying to make the case that the article should be renamed. So first he would change all the links to redirects and then point to the incoming links as evidence that everyone calls it Dragon Quest. You can see how that would be a problem, right? I think what NOTBROKEN is saying is that it's safest if we rely on the real usage statistics by refraining from changing synonymous terms. They are synonyms, after all, so the meaning is identical, right?
 * But I think you might have a point if your central concern was consistency. There have been large discussions in the past regarding whether or not Wikipedia should preferentially use the term "Sega Genesis" or "Master Drive" for example. I'm sure the same could exist for terms from popular consumer products like "Famicom/NES" or "Dragon Quest/Warrior" as well. If there has been a community discussion where one term was decided as the preferred term then I think you could make the case that perhaps it would be a good idea to use a single term in the interest of consistency. Does that sound like it might be the core of your argument for these words? Or do you instead find a problem with NOTBROKEN's argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics?
 * Another redirect dodge I was hoping you could explain is when you changed "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games". These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN's argument that "Shortcuts or redirects to sections of articles ... should never be bypassed, as the section headings on the page may change over time [and] Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links" (point 4; emphasis and ellipses added). So you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions? -Thibbs (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi TJ Spyke. Just checking in again. What's happening now? Why has this conversation stalled? Have you had a chance to read what I just wrote above? I noticed that you've again resumed with the NOTBROKEN violations (swapping "United States of America" for "United States"). I don't think it's too much to ask that you completely refrain from this kind of edit until we've finished discussing our plans for how to present our argument at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. You are violating the guidelines when you make this kind of edit and you've been asked to stop over and over again. Please help me come up with some exceptions that we can present for consensus instead of just continuing to stubbornly violate the guidelines and hope that I'll go away. I won't. I really want to work with you here, but if I see it again I will bring it to AN/I. -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, I didnt do anything wrong with United States. It's the common name of the country and what everyone writes (hell, even the article uses the name) and I know that did NOT violate any rule. Frankly, saying that deleting two words so it uses the common name is wrong, is like saying you can't edit a article to fix a spelling mistake. Might as well freeze all editing. Did I somehow violate it in another article when I changed Major League Baseball to Major League Baseball ? Anyways, i've been busy. But im free now.  TJ   Spyke   15:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Repairing broken wikilinks is not a violation of NOTBROKEN, but changing from one synonymous term (like the official name of a country) to another synonymous term (like the common name for a country) for the same target article is definitely a violation of NOTBROKEN. I don't mean this to sound rude, but you have to accept the fact that your judgment on whether or not a redirect "fix" violates NOTBROKEN is clearly quite poor. I strongly urge you to avoid making those kinds of edits even if you are certain that you're in the right because you are obviously unable to differentiate between violations and non-violations. Anyway I'm glad to hear that you're free now and I'm eager to get to work on the exceptions. -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding Dragon Warrior/Quest, it is not true that Quest was common in European countries. The first game in the series even RELEASED in Europe was Dragon Warrior Monsters in 1999 (where it used "Warrior"), they didnt get another one until Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King (which was when Square Enix FIRST used the "Quest" name outside of Japan). So considering that for almost 20 years the only English name of the series was "Warrior", it makes sense for the ones released with the Warrior name to use that. As for exceptions to NOTBROKEN:


 * I think fixing spelling mistakes and capitalization (i.e. Playstation to PlayStation) are good ones that are not controversial.
 * Hmmm, maybe switching some to the most common name can be OK (though within the right context)
 * Sometimes things will never get an article. I.e. a character who appeared once on a TV show 20 years ago will probably never get an article as they are not notable enough, but they might have an entry in a article about characters from that show. Is it a problem to change a link to that section specifically?
 * If a product is released under one name in most of the world, shouldn't it be OK to write that as the name? I.e. NES/Famicom. Famicom is the Japanese name of the system, but they are still the same system. Doesn't it make sense to change the links to NES? It's especially ridiculous when some articles say a game was released on the NES and Famicom (implying they are different).

Maybe others, but these are off the top of my head.  TJ   Spyke   15:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All PAL versions of the main series are called "Dragon Quest," but that's quite beside the point. The point is that these are synonymous terms and "fixing" them to avoid the redirect violates NOTBROKEN point #6. Unless there has been a discussion leading to a consistency-based preference for one term over the other, the term used by the first European spinoff title has no significance whatsoever and the redirect should not be altered. But this brings me to the question I asked last week:
 * Is switching "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" (or "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System", etc.) something that you have been doing in the interest of inter-article consistency? Is that the core of your argument? Or do you simply reject NOTBROKEN's point #6 (i.e. the argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics)?
 * And as long as I'm re-asking questions from last week,...
 * Could you explain your thought process behind changing "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games"? These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN point #4 (described in last week's comment above). Do you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions?
 * Regarding your exceptions, I agree strongly with the first one (spelling & capitalization). That's definitely going into the final draft of our proposal. I also think that the alteration of redirect terms to reflect a consistent consensus-based terminology (if indeed such a consensus exists) is a good idea. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
 * The other three points you bring up are kind of confusing for me. I don't really think you've presented any argument for making them into exceptions. Basically your reasoning appears to boil down to "Let's make these into exceptions, because why not?" The problem with this is that NOTBROKEN is a consensus-based guideline. Nobody would take us seriously if we proposed exceptions to it without actually giving concrete reasons why the exceptions are needed. The answer to your "is it a problem?" and "shouldn't it be OK?" questions above would be answered by the editors at NOTBROKEN with "Yes it's a problem (see point #4), and no it's not OK (see point #6)." These are consensus-based views on those exact topics.
 * To create an exception we can't just ignore consensus. We have to find a reason that the consensus view is too broad and that in narrowly definable situations the general rules at NOTBROKEN should be excepted. Then we have to convince others based on solid reasoning. If there is no way to distinguish the area to which the rule applies from the area to which the exception applies then we have to propose knocking down part of the rules which will be a much more difficult task and will absolutely require ironclad arguments, not just "why not?" In addition to answering the questions I bulleted above, could you please try to think of specific reasons why we need (or how it would be helpful to have) an exception for common names, obscure aspects, and synonymous terms? -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again TJ Spyke. What is your schedule like? Are you going to have any free time in the next few weeks? I'd like to move forward with our plans regarding the development of a few more exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN. It's been nearly a month since we began talking about this, but if we're to move this forward we have to actually discuss it. I don't want to do this without your help. In fact most of my interest in getting this done is to help editors like you who seem to have problems with the current guidelines. Is this something that still interests you? When will you be available to answer questions like those I asked in the last post? Please don't just leave me hanging here. -Thibbs (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well while I'm waiting for word from you on some kind of timeframe I noticed that you'd performed a few more redirect "fixes" since I last asked you to stop and I can report that I agree most of them. But edits like this and this suggest further exceptions to the rule. From the first of those two links (relinking to the actual page name on a dab page), I think this brings up a good point - that we should add an exception for disambiguation pages per WP:PIPING. The second one (changing a link to a plural term into a link to the singular) looks like just another "fix" for reasons of your own. Can you explain that change? Was there a reason you decided to again violate NOTBROKEN in that case? For all I know there may be policy/guideline supporting that edit but if so then this suggests another good exception. -Thibbs (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and  claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place and second place  both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 16:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

HELP Keep a Social Media War off Wikipedia
There appears to be a Social Media War that has been brought here to Wikipedia, and negative info is being left on the Michelle Borth page that is not necessary. You came to me a few years ago, explaining the boundaries of Wikipedia. Well it appears that they are being broken on Michelle's page. Any input, feedback would help. This little war/argument has gone too far especially now that is being brought to other sites like Wikipedia. This particular user is claiming I have no right to remove the negative info about Michelle, regardless of whether it is true or not, until it is discussed. I feel that if me and this user attempted to discuss, it will get very heated, and you seem to really know ur way, I'd appreciate it Taker22 (talk) 10:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Ashley Fliehr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Providence High School


 * List of acronyms: W (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to WWF


 * Takeshi's Castle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Fuji

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Question about cleanup process
Hi TJ Spyke, I noticed that you've been cleaning up numerous articles today and I was curious how you were doing it. Is it all by hand or do you use a program? Specifically I'm curious how you check the wikilinks. Are you testing each one individually or is there a tool you have that highlights all redirects? -Thibbs (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I use WPCleaner to check articles, but there are some edits that can't be made with it (like spellchecking, typos, etc.), so I then manually edit it after (essentially, I copy and paste the results from WPCleaner, then continue editing the article).  TJ   Spyke   21:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. Is WPCleaner something that you can download from a Wikimedia site/affiliate or should I just Google it if I want to find it? -Thibbs (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here you go: WPCleaner.  TJ   Spyke   21:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm sorry to say I've reverted your edit at the Derby Stallion article yet again. The links that you are "fixing" are indeed redirect links. And per WP:NOTBROKEN, redirects within an article are not supposed to be changed so that they point to the target article instead. There are a number of reasons why this is harmful to Wikipedia and they're clearly spelled out under WP:NOTBROKEN. This has become a problem in the past with users accidentally abusing the Navigation popup tool to "fix" redirects as you're doing and the result was this page. This is actually the reason I was asking above what tool you were using. I was curious to see what other tools were being subjected to this kind of abuse. The WPCleaner talk page is filled with comments regarding users mistakenly "fixing" redirects (e.g. 1, 2, 3, and many more in the archives from 2008 and earlier). The thing is... I've already explained all of this to you in the past (see e.g. 1 and 2). And I know you are aware of this issue because you have already received a final warning on the subject. So I really don't see how what you are doing could be considered good faith editing. Your editing is contrary to the guidelines and you have been repeatedly told this and warned to stop. Normally I'd suggest trying to get the guidelines changed before carrying on in this way, but in this case from your block log it's clear to me that you've consciously decided to change matters unilaterally rather than by seeking consensus. For this reason I've requested administrative action. -Thibbs (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, you did not read NOTBROKEN correctly at all. I have not been making the kinds of edits that got me into trouble before, I have been careful to only makes ones that follow the guidelines. I am sorry that you are not a good editor and dont like others making articles better, but stop vandalizing pages by reverting good edits. I am hesitant to give you a warning, but I will. Frankly, its people like you who are driving editors away from Wikipedia and preventing so many articles from being improved. Go away.  TJ   Spyke   00:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't react like this to new editors. I react this way to editors who have been editing here for 7-odd years and are among the top 400 most prolific editors and who have received a shocking number of warnings and frank blocks including an indef block. You obviously know better than to persist in these games but yet you continue. AGF only extends so far. You clearly have no regard for community guidelines founded on consensus and are only interested in your own editorial decisions. I'm sorry that you decided to take this route. It was a very poor decision on your part. -Thibbs (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, to Derby Stallion (series) is full of unhelpful changes as per WP:NOTBROKEN.  Amalthea  09:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, I see no unhelpful edits. I will not pretend 100% of my edits have been helpful, but ask any average editor and that change is nothing but helpful. And frankly, you shouldnt drive away good editors since fewer and fewer people are editing Wikipedia now. I also notice that I only get hounded when I mass edit articles, I dont get harassed when I only edit a few articles a day.  TJ   Spyke   20:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "It is likewise unhelpful to edit visible links for no reason other than to avoid redirects." Amalthea  22:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A great majority of your NOTBROKEN violations are harmful actually. Try actually reading the guideline. You might be surprised to discover that there are at least six explicitly listed reasons not to change (bypass) redirects. One obvious one is that you are whitewashing usage stats - an activity that is at best completely pointless. But more often it's not completely harmless. It's directly harmful because it obscures the need for new articles on topics that aren't covered and it hides more appropriate and thus needed page-moves.
 * How on earth could these violations be "nothing but helpful"? I can't think of a single way that they help. Correcting incorrect titles or misspelled words or redirect like that is one thing, but how does it help anybody if you change horse breaking to horse training (to take a random example from the Derby Stallion article)? It hides the fact that there is no article on horse breaking - a clearly distinct concept from horse training and it reduces the likelihood that anyone will write an article on horse breaking. In what world does that help in any way whatsoever? At very best it's a completely pointless time-wasting activity. And it's one that you have been warned over and over and over again to stop. Does the consensus of your fellow editor on this issue really matter so little to you that you are unwilling to put an end to this distinctly non-helpful activity? Does the possibility that you may get blocked for a 24th (!!!) time mean nothing to you? I hope I'm not overreacting here, but I find your conduct in this one trivial editorial area to be truly incomprehensible. -Thibbs (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been careful to avoid those types of link changes. How is changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3" doing any harm? There is never gonna be a "Playstation 3" article, ever. And in that Derby Stallion article, changing "PlayStation" to "PlayStation (console)" IS directly helpful and needed because the latter refers to the game system called PlayStation and the former refers to the general product line. Or changing links to "Famicom" to be "Nintendo Entertainment System|Famicom", there will never be a separate Famicom article because it's just the Japanese name of the NES. Sometimes I make mistakes (like with the horse breaking one), but I see it as vandalism when editors revert the whole edit instead of just specific link changes they see as bad.  TJ   Spyke   15:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Look I recognize that apart from this one issue (and I guess the 3RR stuff from your past that I think you've mostly stopped now) you are a good editor. And I also recognize that you're human and that you may make mistakes. But seeing as how you've made so many many mistakes in this one particular area I would seriously recommend avoiding it altogether. Just skimming the cleanups you've performed since you were last unblocked, it's apparent that the large majority of the redirect "fixes" you performed were potentially harmful. And a tiny minority of them are helpful in any way.
 * Is there a reason you feel compelled to change the redirects? I assume it's not just to boost your edit count, right? But is it just because it looks ugly on WPCleaner? Or do you really think that this is somehow helpful? If you do think it is helpful then have you considered making the case to change the guidelines at WP:NOTBROKEN? Because there are only 2 listed exceptions to that guideline currently. I wouldn't say that this is a complete list of all good exceptions, though. Your example of changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3", for instance, seems to me to be correcting a misspelling (or really a mis-capitalization). And I think that this is helpful and that it should be listed as an exception to WP:NOTBROKEN.
 * Why don't you and I try to come up with some exceptions that we could propose to the community together to improve the guidelines so that you're not constantly violating them? If you could come up with a reason why changing "video arcade" to "amusement arcade" or how changing "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System" or how changing "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" helps in any way then you could certainly make that suggestion as well. This would be a much much better way of approaching the problem than just ignoring everyone's warnings and getting banned over and over, don't you think? I'd be willing to help draft some proposed changes if you're willing to engage with me and explain why you feel compelled to violate this guideline. -Thibbs (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me (and withe something like the Dragon Quest, it's because the series name in English was Dragon Warrior before the the Dragon Quest VIII. Amusement arcade and video arcade are essentially interchangeable terms like "pop" and "soda". As for Famicom, aren't we supposed to use English names of products if that is the best known name? Famicom is just the Japanese name of the NES, so I would think other WP policies supported changing them to NES). I've never bothered trying to have NOTBROKEN changed because I know from experience how hard it can be to have policies on Wikipedia changed. Maybe later today or something we can start working on this together to propose changes that seem like common sense to most people.  TJ   Spyke   16:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm encouraged by your attitude. I think we should discuss this thoroughly between us here before proposing anything so that we're clear in our arguments. It's OK if we disagree too, since we can propose changes individually to be accepted piecemeal rather than only as a single package. Anyway here are my thoughts on what you've said just above:
 * Like the term "video arcade", the other two are also examples of synonymous terms: Dragon Warrior is the North American term whereas the English term is actually Dragon Quest (the same is true for all European countries and Japan actually); Famicom is the original Japanese name for the NES. According to NOTBROKEN (point 6), the use of a synonymous redirect term provides useful information relating to usage of the term which can be considered as evidence for renaming the article. By systematically changing these links to the current non-redirect title, you are manipulating the usage statistics. As an example: it might be that the term "Dragon Quest" is better known than "Dragon Warrior", but because you'd have changed all of the "Dragon Quest" redirects into "Dragon Warrior," you would have eradicated this information and we would get a false impression that "Dragon Warrior" was the most commonly used term when in reality it was only the most commonly used because the statistics had been manipulated. If you don't like that example, try imagining the reverse. Imagine someone who called the game "Dragon Quest" trying to make the case that the article should be renamed. So first he would change all the links to redirects and then point to the incoming links as evidence that everyone calls it Dragon Quest. You can see how that would be a problem, right? I think what NOTBROKEN is saying is that it's safest if we rely on the real usage statistics by refraining from changing synonymous terms. They are synonyms, after all, so the meaning is identical, right?
 * But I think you might have a point if your central concern was consistency. There have been large discussions in the past regarding whether or not Wikipedia should preferentially use the term "Sega Genesis" or "Master Drive" for example. I'm sure the same could exist for terms from popular consumer products like "Famicom/NES" or "Dragon Quest/Warrior" as well. If there has been a community discussion where one term was decided as the preferred term then I think you could make the case that perhaps it would be a good idea to use a single term in the interest of consistency. Does that sound like it might be the core of your argument for these words? Or do you instead find a problem with NOTBROKEN's argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics?
 * Another redirect dodge I was hoping you could explain is when you changed "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games". These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN's argument that "Shortcuts or redirects to sections of articles ... should never be bypassed, as the section headings on the page may change over time [and] Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links" (point 4; emphasis and ellipses added). So you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions? -Thibbs (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi TJ Spyke. Just checking in again. What's happening now? Why has this conversation stalled? Have you had a chance to read what I just wrote above? I noticed that you've again resumed with the NOTBROKEN violations (swapping "United States of America" for "United States"). I don't think it's too much to ask that you completely refrain from this kind of edit until we've finished discussing our plans for how to present our argument at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. You are violating the guidelines when you make this kind of edit and you've been asked to stop over and over again. Please help me come up with some exceptions that we can present for consensus instead of just continuing to stubbornly violate the guidelines and hope that I'll go away. I won't. I really want to work with you here, but if I see it again I will bring it to AN/I. -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, I didnt do anything wrong with United States. It's the common name of the country and what everyone writes (hell, even the article uses the name) and I know that did NOT violate any rule. Frankly, saying that deleting two words so it uses the common name is wrong, is like saying you can't edit a article to fix a spelling mistake. Might as well freeze all editing. Did I somehow violate it in another article when I changed Major League Baseball to Major League Baseball ? Anyways, i've been busy. But im free now.  TJ   Spyke   15:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Repairing broken wikilinks is not a violation of NOTBROKEN, but changing from one synonymous term (like the official name of a country) to another synonymous term (like the common name for a country) for the same target article is definitely a violation of NOTBROKEN. I don't mean this to sound rude, but you have to accept the fact that your judgment on whether or not a redirect "fix" violates NOTBROKEN is clearly quite poor. I strongly urge you to avoid making those kinds of edits even if you are certain that you're in the right because you are obviously unable to differentiate between violations and non-violations. Anyway I'm glad to hear that you're free now and I'm eager to get to work on the exceptions. -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding Dragon Warrior/Quest, it is not true that Quest was common in European countries. The first game in the series even RELEASED in Europe was Dragon Warrior Monsters in 1999 (where it used "Warrior"), they didnt get another one until Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King (which was when Square Enix FIRST used the "Quest" name outside of Japan). So considering that for almost 20 years the only English name of the series was "Warrior", it makes sense for the ones released with the Warrior name to use that. As for exceptions to NOTBROKEN:


 * I think fixing spelling mistakes and capitalization (i.e. Playstation to PlayStation) are good ones that are not controversial.
 * Hmmm, maybe switching some to the most common name can be OK (though within the right context)
 * Sometimes things will never get an article. I.e. a character who appeared once on a TV show 20 years ago will probably never get an article as they are not notable enough, but they might have an entry in a article about characters from that show. Is it a problem to change a link to that section specifically?
 * If a product is released under one name in most of the world, shouldn't it be OK to write that as the name? I.e. NES/Famicom. Famicom is the Japanese name of the system, but they are still the same system. Doesn't it make sense to change the links to NES? It's especially ridiculous when some articles say a game was released on the NES and Famicom (implying they are different).

Maybe others, but these are off the top of my head.  TJ   Spyke   15:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All PAL versions of the main series are called "Dragon Quest," but that's quite beside the point. The point is that these are synonymous terms and "fixing" them to avoid the redirect violates NOTBROKEN point #6. Unless there has been a discussion leading to a consistency-based preference for one term over the other, the term used by the first European spinoff title has no significance whatsoever and the redirect should not be altered. But this brings me to the question I asked last week:
 * Is switching "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" (or "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System", etc.) something that you have been doing in the interest of inter-article consistency? Is that the core of your argument? Or do you simply reject NOTBROKEN's point #6 (i.e. the argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics)?
 * And as long as I'm re-asking questions from last week,...
 * Could you explain your thought process behind changing "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games"? These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN point #4 (described in last week's comment above). Do you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions?
 * Regarding your exceptions, I agree strongly with the first one (spelling & capitalization). That's definitely going into the final draft of our proposal. I also think that the alteration of redirect terms to reflect a consistent consensus-based terminology (if indeed such a consensus exists) is a good idea. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
 * The other three points you bring up are kind of confusing for me. I don't really think you've presented any argument for making them into exceptions. Basically your reasoning appears to boil down to "Let's make these into exceptions, because why not?" The problem with this is that NOTBROKEN is a consensus-based guideline. Nobody would take us seriously if we proposed exceptions to it without actually giving concrete reasons why the exceptions are needed. The answer to your "is it a problem?" and "shouldn't it be OK?" questions above would be answered by the editors at NOTBROKEN with "Yes it's a problem (see point #4), and no it's not OK (see point #6)." These are consensus-based views on those exact topics.
 * To create an exception we can't just ignore consensus. We have to find a reason that the consensus view is too broad and that in narrowly definable situations the general rules at NOTBROKEN should be excepted. Then we have to convince others based on solid reasoning. If there is no way to distinguish the area to which the rule applies from the area to which the exception applies then we have to propose knocking down part of the rules which will be a much more difficult task and will absolutely require ironclad arguments, not just "why not?" In addition to answering the questions I bulleted above, could you please try to think of specific reasons why we need (or how it would be helpful to have) an exception for common names, obscure aspects, and synonymous terms? -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again TJ Spyke. What is your schedule like? Are you going to have any free time in the next few weeks? I'd like to move forward with our plans regarding the development of a few more exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN. It's been nearly a month since we began talking about this, but if we're to move this forward we have to actually discuss it. I don't want to do this without your help. In fact most of my interest in getting this done is to help editors like you who seem to have problems with the current guidelines. Is this something that still interests you? When will you be available to answer questions like those I asked in the last post? Please don't just leave me hanging here. -Thibbs (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well while I'm waiting for word from you on some kind of timeframe I noticed that you'd performed a few more redirect "fixes" since I last asked you to stop and I can report that I agree most of them. But edits like this and this suggest further exceptions to the rule. From the first of those two links (relinking to the actual page name on a dab page), I think this brings up a good point - that we should add an exception for disambiguation pages per WP:PIPING. The second one (changing a link to a plural term into a link to the singular) looks like just another "fix" for reasons of your own. Can you explain that change? Was there a reason you decided to again violate NOTBROKEN in that case? For all I know there may be policy/guideline supporting that edit but if so then this suggests another good exception. -Thibbs (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and  claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place and second place  both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 16:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

HELP Keep a Social Media War off Wikipedia
There appears to be a Social Media War that has been brought here to Wikipedia, and negative info is being left on the Michelle Borth page that is not necessary. You came to me a few years ago, explaining the boundaries of Wikipedia. Well it appears that they are being broken on Michelle's page. Any input, feedback would help. This little war/argument has gone too far especially now that is being brought to other sites like Wikipedia. This particular user is claiming I have no right to remove the negative info about Michelle, regardless of whether it is true or not, until it is discussed. I feel that if me and this user attempted to discuss, it will get very heated, and you seem to really know ur way, I'd appreciate it Taker22 (talk) 10:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Ashley Fliehr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Providence High School


 * List of acronyms: W (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to WWF


 * Takeshi's Castle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Fuji

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Question about cleanup process
Hi TJ Spyke, I noticed that you've been cleaning up numerous articles today and I was curious how you were doing it. Is it all by hand or do you use a program? Specifically I'm curious how you check the wikilinks. Are you testing each one individually or is there a tool you have that highlights all redirects? -Thibbs (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I use WPCleaner to check articles, but there are some edits that can't be made with it (like spellchecking, typos, etc.), so I then manually edit it after (essentially, I copy and paste the results from WPCleaner, then continue editing the article).  TJ   Spyke   21:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. Is WPCleaner something that you can download from a Wikimedia site/affiliate or should I just Google it if I want to find it? -Thibbs (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here you go: WPCleaner.  TJ   Spyke   21:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm sorry to say I've reverted your edit at the Derby Stallion article yet again. The links that you are "fixing" are indeed redirect links. And per WP:NOTBROKEN, redirects within an article are not supposed to be changed so that they point to the target article instead. There are a number of reasons why this is harmful to Wikipedia and they're clearly spelled out under WP:NOTBROKEN. This has become a problem in the past with users accidentally abusing the Navigation popup tool to "fix" redirects as you're doing and the result was this page. This is actually the reason I was asking above what tool you were using. I was curious to see what other tools were being subjected to this kind of abuse. The WPCleaner talk page is filled with comments regarding users mistakenly "fixing" redirects (e.g. 1, 2, 3, and many more in the archives from 2008 and earlier). The thing is... I've already explained all of this to you in the past (see e.g. 1 and 2). And I know you are aware of this issue because you have already received a final warning on the subject. So I really don't see how what you are doing could be considered good faith editing. Your editing is contrary to the guidelines and you have been repeatedly told this and warned to stop. Normally I'd suggest trying to get the guidelines changed before carrying on in this way, but in this case from your block log it's clear to me that you've consciously decided to change matters unilaterally rather than by seeking consensus. For this reason I've requested administrative action. -Thibbs (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, you did not read NOTBROKEN correctly at all. I have not been making the kinds of edits that got me into trouble before, I have been careful to only makes ones that follow the guidelines. I am sorry that you are not a good editor and dont like others making articles better, but stop vandalizing pages by reverting good edits. I am hesitant to give you a warning, but I will. Frankly, its people like you who are driving editors away from Wikipedia and preventing so many articles from being improved. Go away.  TJ   Spyke   00:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't react like this to new editors. I react this way to editors who have been editing here for 7-odd years and are among the top 400 most prolific editors and who have received a shocking number of warnings and frank blocks including an indef block. You obviously know better than to persist in these games but yet you continue. AGF only extends so far. You clearly have no regard for community guidelines founded on consensus and are only interested in your own editorial decisions. I'm sorry that you decided to take this route. It was a very poor decision on your part. -Thibbs (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, to Derby Stallion (series) is full of unhelpful changes as per WP:NOTBROKEN.  Amalthea  09:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, I see no unhelpful edits. I will not pretend 100% of my edits have been helpful, but ask any average editor and that change is nothing but helpful. And frankly, you shouldnt drive away good editors since fewer and fewer people are editing Wikipedia now. I also notice that I only get hounded when I mass edit articles, I dont get harassed when I only edit a few articles a day.  TJ   Spyke   20:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "It is likewise unhelpful to edit visible links for no reason other than to avoid redirects." Amalthea  22:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A great majority of your NOTBROKEN violations are harmful actually. Try actually reading the guideline. You might be surprised to discover that there are at least six explicitly listed reasons not to change (bypass) redirects. One obvious one is that you are whitewashing usage stats - an activity that is at best completely pointless. But more often it's not completely harmless. It's directly harmful because it obscures the need for new articles on topics that aren't covered and it hides more appropriate and thus needed page-moves.
 * How on earth could these violations be "nothing but helpful"? I can't think of a single way that they help. Correcting incorrect titles or misspelled words or redirect like that is one thing, but how does it help anybody if you change horse breaking to horse training (to take a random example from the Derby Stallion article)? It hides the fact that there is no article on horse breaking - a clearly distinct concept from horse training and it reduces the likelihood that anyone will write an article on horse breaking. In what world does that help in any way whatsoever? At very best it's a completely pointless time-wasting activity. And it's one that you have been warned over and over and over again to stop. Does the consensus of your fellow editor on this issue really matter so little to you that you are unwilling to put an end to this distinctly non-helpful activity? Does the possibility that you may get blocked for a 24th (!!!) time mean nothing to you? I hope I'm not overreacting here, but I find your conduct in this one trivial editorial area to be truly incomprehensible. -Thibbs (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been careful to avoid those types of link changes. How is changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3" doing any harm? There is never gonna be a "Playstation 3" article, ever. And in that Derby Stallion article, changing "PlayStation" to "PlayStation (console)" IS directly helpful and needed because the latter refers to the game system called PlayStation and the former refers to the general product line. Or changing links to "Famicom" to be "Nintendo Entertainment System|Famicom", there will never be a separate Famicom article because it's just the Japanese name of the NES. Sometimes I make mistakes (like with the horse breaking one), but I see it as vandalism when editors revert the whole edit instead of just specific link changes they see as bad.  TJ   Spyke   15:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Look I recognize that apart from this one issue (and I guess the 3RR stuff from your past that I think you've mostly stopped now) you are a good editor. And I also recognize that you're human and that you may make mistakes. But seeing as how you've made so many many mistakes in this one particular area I would seriously recommend avoiding it altogether. Just skimming the cleanups you've performed since you were last unblocked, it's apparent that the large majority of the redirect "fixes" you performed were potentially harmful. And a tiny minority of them are helpful in any way.
 * Is there a reason you feel compelled to change the redirects? I assume it's not just to boost your edit count, right? But is it just because it looks ugly on WPCleaner? Or do you really think that this is somehow helpful? If you do think it is helpful then have you considered making the case to change the guidelines at WP:NOTBROKEN? Because there are only 2 listed exceptions to that guideline currently. I wouldn't say that this is a complete list of all good exceptions, though. Your example of changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3", for instance, seems to me to be correcting a misspelling (or really a mis-capitalization). And I think that this is helpful and that it should be listed as an exception to WP:NOTBROKEN.
 * Why don't you and I try to come up with some exceptions that we could propose to the community together to improve the guidelines so that you're not constantly violating them? If you could come up with a reason why changing "video arcade" to "amusement arcade" or how changing "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System" or how changing "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" helps in any way then you could certainly make that suggestion as well. This would be a much much better way of approaching the problem than just ignoring everyone's warnings and getting banned over and over, don't you think? I'd be willing to help draft some proposed changes if you're willing to engage with me and explain why you feel compelled to violate this guideline. -Thibbs (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me (and withe something like the Dragon Quest, it's because the series name in English was Dragon Warrior before the the Dragon Quest VIII. Amusement arcade and video arcade are essentially interchangeable terms like "pop" and "soda". As for Famicom, aren't we supposed to use English names of products if that is the best known name? Famicom is just the Japanese name of the NES, so I would think other WP policies supported changing them to NES). I've never bothered trying to have NOTBROKEN changed because I know from experience how hard it can be to have policies on Wikipedia changed. Maybe later today or something we can start working on this together to propose changes that seem like common sense to most people.  TJ   Spyke   16:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm encouraged by your attitude. I think we should discuss this thoroughly between us here before proposing anything so that we're clear in our arguments. It's OK if we disagree too, since we can propose changes individually to be accepted piecemeal rather than only as a single package. Anyway here are my thoughts on what you've said just above:
 * Like the term "video arcade", the other two are also examples of synonymous terms: Dragon Warrior is the North American term whereas the English term is actually Dragon Quest (the same is true for all European countries and Japan actually); Famicom is the original Japanese name for the NES. According to NOTBROKEN (point 6), the use of a synonymous redirect term provides useful information relating to usage of the term which can be considered as evidence for renaming the article. By systematically changing these links to the current non-redirect title, you are manipulating the usage statistics. As an example: it might be that the term "Dragon Quest" is better known than "Dragon Warrior", but because you'd have changed all of the "Dragon Quest" redirects into "Dragon Warrior," you would have eradicated this information and we would get a false impression that "Dragon Warrior" was the most commonly used term when in reality it was only the most commonly used because the statistics had been manipulated. If you don't like that example, try imagining the reverse. Imagine someone who called the game "Dragon Quest" trying to make the case that the article should be renamed. So first he would change all the links to redirects and then point to the incoming links as evidence that everyone calls it Dragon Quest. You can see how that would be a problem, right? I think what NOTBROKEN is saying is that it's safest if we rely on the real usage statistics by refraining from changing synonymous terms. They are synonyms, after all, so the meaning is identical, right?
 * But I think you might have a point if your central concern was consistency. There have been large discussions in the past regarding whether or not Wikipedia should preferentially use the term "Sega Genesis" or "Master Drive" for example. I'm sure the same could exist for terms from popular consumer products like "Famicom/NES" or "Dragon Quest/Warrior" as well. If there has been a community discussion where one term was decided as the preferred term then I think you could make the case that perhaps it would be a good idea to use a single term in the interest of consistency. Does that sound like it might be the core of your argument for these words? Or do you instead find a problem with NOTBROKEN's argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics?
 * Another redirect dodge I was hoping you could explain is when you changed "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games". These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN's argument that "Shortcuts or redirects to sections of articles ... should never be bypassed, as the section headings on the page may change over time [and] Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links" (point 4; emphasis and ellipses added). So you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions? -Thibbs (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi TJ Spyke. Just checking in again. What's happening now? Why has this conversation stalled? Have you had a chance to read what I just wrote above? I noticed that you've again resumed with the NOTBROKEN violations (swapping "United States of America" for "United States"). I don't think it's too much to ask that you completely refrain from this kind of edit until we've finished discussing our plans for how to present our argument at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. You are violating the guidelines when you make this kind of edit and you've been asked to stop over and over again. Please help me come up with some exceptions that we can present for consensus instead of just continuing to stubbornly violate the guidelines and hope that I'll go away. I won't. I really want to work with you here, but if I see it again I will bring it to AN/I. -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, I didnt do anything wrong with United States. It's the common name of the country and what everyone writes (hell, even the article uses the name) and I know that did NOT violate any rule. Frankly, saying that deleting two words so it uses the common name is wrong, is like saying you can't edit a article to fix a spelling mistake. Might as well freeze all editing. Did I somehow violate it in another article when I changed Major League Baseball to Major League Baseball ? Anyways, i've been busy. But im free now.  TJ   Spyke   15:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Repairing broken wikilinks is not a violation of NOTBROKEN, but changing from one synonymous term (like the official name of a country) to another synonymous term (like the common name for a country) for the same target article is definitely a violation of NOTBROKEN. I don't mean this to sound rude, but you have to accept the fact that your judgment on whether or not a redirect "fix" violates NOTBROKEN is clearly quite poor. I strongly urge you to avoid making those kinds of edits even if you are certain that you're in the right because you are obviously unable to differentiate between violations and non-violations. Anyway I'm glad to hear that you're free now and I'm eager to get to work on the exceptions. -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding Dragon Warrior/Quest, it is not true that Quest was common in European countries. The first game in the series even RELEASED in Europe was Dragon Warrior Monsters in 1999 (where it used "Warrior"), they didnt get another one until Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King (which was when Square Enix FIRST used the "Quest" name outside of Japan). So considering that for almost 20 years the only English name of the series was "Warrior", it makes sense for the ones released with the Warrior name to use that. As for exceptions to NOTBROKEN:


 * I think fixing spelling mistakes and capitalization (i.e. Playstation to PlayStation) are good ones that are not controversial.
 * Hmmm, maybe switching some to the most common name can be OK (though within the right context)
 * Sometimes things will never get an article. I.e. a character who appeared once on a TV show 20 years ago will probably never get an article as they are not notable enough, but they might have an entry in a article about characters from that show. Is it a problem to change a link to that section specifically?
 * If a product is released under one name in most of the world, shouldn't it be OK to write that as the name? I.e. NES/Famicom. Famicom is the Japanese name of the system, but they are still the same system. Doesn't it make sense to change the links to NES? It's especially ridiculous when some articles say a game was released on the NES and Famicom (implying they are different).

Maybe others, but these are off the top of my head.  TJ   Spyke   15:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All PAL versions of the main series are called "Dragon Quest," but that's quite beside the point. The point is that these are synonymous terms and "fixing" them to avoid the redirect violates NOTBROKEN point #6. Unless there has been a discussion leading to a consistency-based preference for one term over the other, the term used by the first European spinoff title has no significance whatsoever and the redirect should not be altered. But this brings me to the question I asked last week:
 * Is switching "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" (or "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System", etc.) something that you have been doing in the interest of inter-article consistency? Is that the core of your argument? Or do you simply reject NOTBROKEN's point #6 (i.e. the argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics)?
 * And as long as I'm re-asking questions from last week,...
 * Could you explain your thought process behind changing "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games"? These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN point #4 (described in last week's comment above). Do you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions?
 * Regarding your exceptions, I agree strongly with the first one (spelling & capitalization). That's definitely going into the final draft of our proposal. I also think that the alteration of redirect terms to reflect a consistent consensus-based terminology (if indeed such a consensus exists) is a good idea. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
 * The other three points you bring up are kind of confusing for me. I don't really think you've presented any argument for making them into exceptions. Basically your reasoning appears to boil down to "Let's make these into exceptions, because why not?" The problem with this is that NOTBROKEN is a consensus-based guideline. Nobody would take us seriously if we proposed exceptions to it without actually giving concrete reasons why the exceptions are needed. The answer to your "is it a problem?" and "shouldn't it be OK?" questions above would be answered by the editors at NOTBROKEN with "Yes it's a problem (see point #4), and no it's not OK (see point #6)." These are consensus-based views on those exact topics.
 * To create an exception we can't just ignore consensus. We have to find a reason that the consensus view is too broad and that in narrowly definable situations the general rules at NOTBROKEN should be excepted. Then we have to convince others based on solid reasoning. If there is no way to distinguish the area to which the rule applies from the area to which the exception applies then we have to propose knocking down part of the rules which will be a much more difficult task and will absolutely require ironclad arguments, not just "why not?" In addition to answering the questions I bulleted above, could you please try to think of specific reasons why we need (or how it would be helpful to have) an exception for common names, obscure aspects, and synonymous terms? -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again TJ Spyke. What is your schedule like? Are you going to have any free time in the next few weeks? I'd like to move forward with our plans regarding the development of a few more exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN. It's been nearly a month since we began talking about this, but if we're to move this forward we have to actually discuss it. I don't want to do this without your help. In fact most of my interest in getting this done is to help editors like you who seem to have problems with the current guidelines. Is this something that still interests you? When will you be available to answer questions like those I asked in the last post? Please don't just leave me hanging here. -Thibbs (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well while I'm waiting for word from you on some kind of timeframe I noticed that you'd performed a few more redirect "fixes" since I last asked you to stop and I can report that I agree most of them. But edits like this and this suggest further exceptions to the rule. From the first of those two links (relinking to the actual page name on a dab page), I think this brings up a good point - that we should add an exception for disambiguation pages per WP:PIPING. The second one (changing a link to a plural term into a link to the singular) looks like just another "fix" for reasons of your own. Can you explain that change? Was there a reason you decided to again violate NOTBROKEN in that case? For all I know there may be policy/guideline supporting that edit but if so then this suggests another good exception. -Thibbs (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and  claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place and second place  both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 16:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

HELP Keep a Social Media War off Wikipedia
There appears to be a Social Media War that has been brought here to Wikipedia, and negative info is being left on the Michelle Borth page that is not necessary. You came to me a few years ago, explaining the boundaries of Wikipedia. Well it appears that they are being broken on Michelle's page. Any input, feedback would help. This little war/argument has gone too far especially now that is being brought to other sites like Wikipedia. This particular user is claiming I have no right to remove the negative info about Michelle, regardless of whether it is true or not, until it is discussed. I feel that if me and this user attempted to discuss, it will get very heated, and you seem to really know ur way, I'd appreciate it Taker22 (talk) 10:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Continual redirect problems by User:TJ Spyke. Thank you. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 23:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're about to be blocked indefinitely. If I were you I'd be pleading my case at ANI. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Ashley Fliehr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Providence High School


 * List of acronyms: W (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to WWF


 * Takeshi's Castle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Fuji

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Question about cleanup process
Hi TJ Spyke, I noticed that you've been cleaning up numerous articles today and I was curious how you were doing it. Is it all by hand or do you use a program? Specifically I'm curious how you check the wikilinks. Are you testing each one individually or is there a tool you have that highlights all redirects? -Thibbs (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I use WPCleaner to check articles, but there are some edits that can't be made with it (like spellchecking, typos, etc.), so I then manually edit it after (essentially, I copy and paste the results from WPCleaner, then continue editing the article).  TJ   Spyke   21:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. Is WPCleaner something that you can download from a Wikimedia site/affiliate or should I just Google it if I want to find it? -Thibbs (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here you go: WPCleaner.  TJ   Spyke   21:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm sorry to say I've reverted your edit at the Derby Stallion article yet again. The links that you are "fixing" are indeed redirect links. And per WP:NOTBROKEN, redirects within an article are not supposed to be changed so that they point to the target article instead. There are a number of reasons why this is harmful to Wikipedia and they're clearly spelled out under WP:NOTBROKEN. This has become a problem in the past with users accidentally abusing the Navigation popup tool to "fix" redirects as you're doing and the result was this page. This is actually the reason I was asking above what tool you were using. I was curious to see what other tools were being subjected to this kind of abuse. The WPCleaner talk page is filled with comments regarding users mistakenly "fixing" redirects (e.g. 1, 2, 3, and many more in the archives from 2008 and earlier). The thing is... I've already explained all of this to you in the past (see e.g. 1 and 2). And I know you are aware of this issue because you have already received a final warning on the subject. So I really don't see how what you are doing could be considered good faith editing. Your editing is contrary to the guidelines and you have been repeatedly told this and warned to stop. Normally I'd suggest trying to get the guidelines changed before carrying on in this way, but in this case from your block log it's clear to me that you've consciously decided to change matters unilaterally rather than by seeking consensus. For this reason I've requested administrative action. -Thibbs (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, you did not read NOTBROKEN correctly at all. I have not been making the kinds of edits that got me into trouble before, I have been careful to only makes ones that follow the guidelines. I am sorry that you are not a good editor and dont like others making articles better, but stop vandalizing pages by reverting good edits. I am hesitant to give you a warning, but I will. Frankly, its people like you who are driving editors away from Wikipedia and preventing so many articles from being improved. Go away.  TJ   Spyke   00:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't react like this to new editors. I react this way to editors who have been editing here for 7-odd years and are among the top 400 most prolific editors and who have received a shocking number of warnings and frank blocks including an indef block. You obviously know better than to persist in these games but yet you continue. AGF only extends so far. You clearly have no regard for community guidelines founded on consensus and are only interested in your own editorial decisions. I'm sorry that you decided to take this route. It was a very poor decision on your part. -Thibbs (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, to Derby Stallion (series) is full of unhelpful changes as per WP:NOTBROKEN.  Amalthea  09:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, I see no unhelpful edits. I will not pretend 100% of my edits have been helpful, but ask any average editor and that change is nothing but helpful. And frankly, you shouldnt drive away good editors since fewer and fewer people are editing Wikipedia now. I also notice that I only get hounded when I mass edit articles, I dont get harassed when I only edit a few articles a day.  TJ   Spyke   20:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "It is likewise unhelpful to edit visible links for no reason other than to avoid redirects." Amalthea  22:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A great majority of your NOTBROKEN violations are harmful actually. Try actually reading the guideline. You might be surprised to discover that there are at least six explicitly listed reasons not to change (bypass) redirects. One obvious one is that you are whitewashing usage stats - an activity that is at best completely pointless. But more often it's not completely harmless. It's directly harmful because it obscures the need for new articles on topics that aren't covered and it hides more appropriate and thus needed page-moves.
 * How on earth could these violations be "nothing but helpful"? I can't think of a single way that they help. Correcting incorrect titles or misspelled words or redirect like that is one thing, but how does it help anybody if you change horse breaking to horse training (to take a random example from the Derby Stallion article)? It hides the fact that there is no article on horse breaking - a clearly distinct concept from horse training and it reduces the likelihood that anyone will write an article on horse breaking. In what world does that help in any way whatsoever? At very best it's a completely pointless time-wasting activity. And it's one that you have been warned over and over and over again to stop. Does the consensus of your fellow editor on this issue really matter so little to you that you are unwilling to put an end to this distinctly non-helpful activity? Does the possibility that you may get blocked for a 24th (!!!) time mean nothing to you? I hope I'm not overreacting here, but I find your conduct in this one trivial editorial area to be truly incomprehensible. -Thibbs (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been careful to avoid those types of link changes. How is changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3" doing any harm? There is never gonna be a "Playstation 3" article, ever. And in that Derby Stallion article, changing "PlayStation" to "PlayStation (console)" IS directly helpful and needed because the latter refers to the game system called PlayStation and the former refers to the general product line. Or changing links to "Famicom" to be "Nintendo Entertainment System|Famicom", there will never be a separate Famicom article because it's just the Japanese name of the NES. Sometimes I make mistakes (like with the horse breaking one), but I see it as vandalism when editors revert the whole edit instead of just specific link changes they see as bad.  TJ   Spyke   15:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Look I recognize that apart from this one issue (and I guess the 3RR stuff from your past that I think you've mostly stopped now) you are a good editor. And I also recognize that you're human and that you may make mistakes. But seeing as how you've made so many many mistakes in this one particular area I would seriously recommend avoiding it altogether. Just skimming the cleanups you've performed since you were last unblocked, it's apparent that the large majority of the redirect "fixes" you performed were potentially harmful. And a tiny minority of them are helpful in any way.
 * Is there a reason you feel compelled to change the redirects? I assume it's not just to boost your edit count, right? But is it just because it looks ugly on WPCleaner? Or do you really think that this is somehow helpful? If you do think it is helpful then have you considered making the case to change the guidelines at WP:NOTBROKEN? Because there are only 2 listed exceptions to that guideline currently. I wouldn't say that this is a complete list of all good exceptions, though. Your example of changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3", for instance, seems to me to be correcting a misspelling (or really a mis-capitalization). And I think that this is helpful and that it should be listed as an exception to WP:NOTBROKEN.
 * Why don't you and I try to come up with some exceptions that we could propose to the community together to improve the guidelines so that you're not constantly violating them? If you could come up with a reason why changing "video arcade" to "amusement arcade" or how changing "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System" or how changing "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" helps in any way then you could certainly make that suggestion as well. This would be a much much better way of approaching the problem than just ignoring everyone's warnings and getting banned over and over, don't you think? I'd be willing to help draft some proposed changes if you're willing to engage with me and explain why you feel compelled to violate this guideline. -Thibbs (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me (and withe something like the Dragon Quest, it's because the series name in English was Dragon Warrior before the the Dragon Quest VIII. Amusement arcade and video arcade are essentially interchangeable terms like "pop" and "soda". As for Famicom, aren't we supposed to use English names of products if that is the best known name? Famicom is just the Japanese name of the NES, so I would think other WP policies supported changing them to NES). I've never bothered trying to have NOTBROKEN changed because I know from experience how hard it can be to have policies on Wikipedia changed. Maybe later today or something we can start working on this together to propose changes that seem like common sense to most people.  TJ   Spyke   16:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm encouraged by your attitude. I think we should discuss this thoroughly between us here before proposing anything so that we're clear in our arguments. It's OK if we disagree too, since we can propose changes individually to be accepted piecemeal rather than only as a single package. Anyway here are my thoughts on what you've said just above:
 * Like the term "video arcade", the other two are also examples of synonymous terms: Dragon Warrior is the North American term whereas the English term is actually Dragon Quest (the same is true for all European countries and Japan actually); Famicom is the original Japanese name for the NES. According to NOTBROKEN (point 6), the use of a synonymous redirect term provides useful information relating to usage of the term which can be considered as evidence for renaming the article. By systematically changing these links to the current non-redirect title, you are manipulating the usage statistics. As an example: it might be that the term "Dragon Quest" is better known than "Dragon Warrior", but because you'd have changed all of the "Dragon Quest" redirects into "Dragon Warrior," you would have eradicated this information and we would get a false impression that "Dragon Warrior" was the most commonly used term when in reality it was only the most commonly used because the statistics had been manipulated. If you don't like that example, try imagining the reverse. Imagine someone who called the game "Dragon Quest" trying to make the case that the article should be renamed. So first he would change all the links to redirects and then point to the incoming links as evidence that everyone calls it Dragon Quest. You can see how that would be a problem, right? I think what NOTBROKEN is saying is that it's safest if we rely on the real usage statistics by refraining from changing synonymous terms. They are synonyms, after all, so the meaning is identical, right?
 * But I think you might have a point if your central concern was consistency. There have been large discussions in the past regarding whether or not Wikipedia should preferentially use the term "Sega Genesis" or "Master Drive" for example. I'm sure the same could exist for terms from popular consumer products like "Famicom/NES" or "Dragon Quest/Warrior" as well. If there has been a community discussion where one term was decided as the preferred term then I think you could make the case that perhaps it would be a good idea to use a single term in the interest of consistency. Does that sound like it might be the core of your argument for these words? Or do you instead find a problem with NOTBROKEN's argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics?
 * Another redirect dodge I was hoping you could explain is when you changed "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games". These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN's argument that "Shortcuts or redirects to sections of articles ... should never be bypassed, as the section headings on the page may change over time [and] Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links" (point 4; emphasis and ellipses added). So you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions? -Thibbs (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi TJ Spyke. Just checking in again. What's happening now? Why has this conversation stalled? Have you had a chance to read what I just wrote above? I noticed that you've again resumed with the NOTBROKEN violations (swapping "United States of America" for "United States"). I don't think it's too much to ask that you completely refrain from this kind of edit until we've finished discussing our plans for how to present our argument at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. You are violating the guidelines when you make this kind of edit and you've been asked to stop over and over again. Please help me come up with some exceptions that we can present for consensus instead of just continuing to stubbornly violate the guidelines and hope that I'll go away. I won't. I really want to work with you here, but if I see it again I will bring it to AN/I. -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, I didnt do anything wrong with United States. It's the common name of the country and what everyone writes (hell, even the article uses the name) and I know that did NOT violate any rule. Frankly, saying that deleting two words so it uses the common name is wrong, is like saying you can't edit a article to fix a spelling mistake. Might as well freeze all editing. Did I somehow violate it in another article when I changed Major League Baseball to Major League Baseball ? Anyways, i've been busy. But im free now.  TJ   Spyke   15:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Repairing broken wikilinks is not a violation of NOTBROKEN, but changing from one synonymous term (like the official name of a country) to another synonymous term (like the common name for a country) for the same target article is definitely a violation of NOTBROKEN. I don't mean this to sound rude, but you have to accept the fact that your judgment on whether or not a redirect "fix" violates NOTBROKEN is clearly quite poor. I strongly urge you to avoid making those kinds of edits even if you are certain that you're in the right because you are obviously unable to differentiate between violations and non-violations. Anyway I'm glad to hear that you're free now and I'm eager to get to work on the exceptions. -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding Dragon Warrior/Quest, it is not true that Quest was common in European countries. The first game in the series even RELEASED in Europe was Dragon Warrior Monsters in 1999 (where it used "Warrior"), they didnt get another one until Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King (which was when Square Enix FIRST used the "Quest" name outside of Japan). So considering that for almost 20 years the only English name of the series was "Warrior", it makes sense for the ones released with the Warrior name to use that. As for exceptions to NOTBROKEN:


 * I think fixing spelling mistakes and capitalization (i.e. Playstation to PlayStation) are good ones that are not controversial.
 * Hmmm, maybe switching some to the most common name can be OK (though within the right context)
 * Sometimes things will never get an article. I.e. a character who appeared once on a TV show 20 years ago will probably never get an article as they are not notable enough, but they might have an entry in a article about characters from that show. Is it a problem to change a link to that section specifically?
 * If a product is released under one name in most of the world, shouldn't it be OK to write that as the name? I.e. NES/Famicom. Famicom is the Japanese name of the system, but they are still the same system. Doesn't it make sense to change the links to NES? It's especially ridiculous when some articles say a game was released on the NES and Famicom (implying they are different).

Maybe others, but these are off the top of my head.  TJ   Spyke   15:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All PAL versions of the main series are called "Dragon Quest," but that's quite beside the point. The point is that these are synonymous terms and "fixing" them to avoid the redirect violates NOTBROKEN point #6. Unless there has been a discussion leading to a consistency-based preference for one term over the other, the term used by the first European spinoff title has no significance whatsoever and the redirect should not be altered. But this brings me to the question I asked last week:
 * Is switching "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" (or "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System", etc.) something that you have been doing in the interest of inter-article consistency? Is that the core of your argument? Or do you simply reject NOTBROKEN's point #6 (i.e. the argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics)?
 * And as long as I'm re-asking questions from last week,...
 * Could you explain your thought process behind changing "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games"? These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN point #4 (described in last week's comment above). Do you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions?
 * Regarding your exceptions, I agree strongly with the first one (spelling & capitalization). That's definitely going into the final draft of our proposal. I also think that the alteration of redirect terms to reflect a consistent consensus-based terminology (if indeed such a consensus exists) is a good idea. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
 * The other three points you bring up are kind of confusing for me. I don't really think you've presented any argument for making them into exceptions. Basically your reasoning appears to boil down to "Let's make these into exceptions, because why not?" The problem with this is that NOTBROKEN is a consensus-based guideline. Nobody would take us seriously if we proposed exceptions to it without actually giving concrete reasons why the exceptions are needed. The answer to your "is it a problem?" and "shouldn't it be OK?" questions above would be answered by the editors at NOTBROKEN with "Yes it's a problem (see point #4), and no it's not OK (see point #6)." These are consensus-based views on those exact topics.
 * To create an exception we can't just ignore consensus. We have to find a reason that the consensus view is too broad and that in narrowly definable situations the general rules at NOTBROKEN should be excepted. Then we have to convince others based on solid reasoning. If there is no way to distinguish the area to which the rule applies from the area to which the exception applies then we have to propose knocking down part of the rules which will be a much more difficult task and will absolutely require ironclad arguments, not just "why not?" In addition to answering the questions I bulleted above, could you please try to think of specific reasons why we need (or how it would be helpful to have) an exception for common names, obscure aspects, and synonymous terms? -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again TJ Spyke. What is your schedule like? Are you going to have any free time in the next few weeks? I'd like to move forward with our plans regarding the development of a few more exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN. It's been nearly a month since we began talking about this, but if we're to move this forward we have to actually discuss it. I don't want to do this without your help. In fact most of my interest in getting this done is to help editors like you who seem to have problems with the current guidelines. Is this something that still interests you? When will you be available to answer questions like those I asked in the last post? Please don't just leave me hanging here. -Thibbs (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well while I'm waiting for word from you on some kind of timeframe I noticed that you'd performed a few more redirect "fixes" since I last asked you to stop and I can report that I agree most of them. But edits like this and this suggest further exceptions to the rule. From the first of those two links (relinking to the actual page name on a dab page), I think this brings up a good point - that we should add an exception for disambiguation pages per WP:PIPING. The second one (changing a link to a plural term into a link to the singular) looks like just another "fix" for reasons of your own. Can you explain that change? Was there a reason you decided to again violate NOTBROKEN in that case? For all I know there may be policy/guideline supporting that edit but if so then this suggests another good exception. -Thibbs (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and  claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place and second place  both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 16:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

HELP Keep a Social Media War off Wikipedia
There appears to be a Social Media War that has been brought here to Wikipedia, and negative info is being left on the Michelle Borth page that is not necessary. You came to me a few years ago, explaining the boundaries of Wikipedia. Well it appears that they are being broken on Michelle's page. Any input, feedback would help. This little war/argument has gone too far especially now that is being brought to other sites like Wikipedia. This particular user is claiming I have no right to remove the negative info about Michelle, regardless of whether it is true or not, until it is discussed. I feel that if me and this user attempted to discuss, it will get very heated, and you seem to really know ur way, I'd appreciate it Taker22 (talk) 10:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Continual redirect problems by User:TJ Spyke. Thank you. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 23:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're about to be blocked indefinitely. If I were you I'd be pleading my case at ANI. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Ashley Fliehr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Providence High School


 * List of acronyms: W (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to WWF


 * Takeshi's Castle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Fuji

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Question about cleanup process
Hi TJ Spyke, I noticed that you've been cleaning up numerous articles today and I was curious how you were doing it. Is it all by hand or do you use a program? Specifically I'm curious how you check the wikilinks. Are you testing each one individually or is there a tool you have that highlights all redirects? -Thibbs (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I use WPCleaner to check articles, but there are some edits that can't be made with it (like spellchecking, typos, etc.), so I then manually edit it after (essentially, I copy and paste the results from WPCleaner, then continue editing the article).  TJ   Spyke   21:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. Is WPCleaner something that you can download from a Wikimedia site/affiliate or should I just Google it if I want to find it? -Thibbs (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here you go: WPCleaner.  TJ   Spyke   21:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm sorry to say I've reverted your edit at the Derby Stallion article yet again. The links that you are "fixing" are indeed redirect links. And per WP:NOTBROKEN, redirects within an article are not supposed to be changed so that they point to the target article instead. There are a number of reasons why this is harmful to Wikipedia and they're clearly spelled out under WP:NOTBROKEN. This has become a problem in the past with users accidentally abusing the Navigation popup tool to "fix" redirects as you're doing and the result was this page. This is actually the reason I was asking above what tool you were using. I was curious to see what other tools were being subjected to this kind of abuse. The WPCleaner talk page is filled with comments regarding users mistakenly "fixing" redirects (e.g. 1, 2, 3, and many more in the archives from 2008 and earlier). The thing is... I've already explained all of this to you in the past (see e.g. 1 and 2). And I know you are aware of this issue because you have already received a final warning on the subject. So I really don't see how what you are doing could be considered good faith editing. Your editing is contrary to the guidelines and you have been repeatedly told this and warned to stop. Normally I'd suggest trying to get the guidelines changed before carrying on in this way, but in this case from your block log it's clear to me that you've consciously decided to change matters unilaterally rather than by seeking consensus. For this reason I've requested administrative action. -Thibbs (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, you did not read NOTBROKEN correctly at all. I have not been making the kinds of edits that got me into trouble before, I have been careful to only makes ones that follow the guidelines. I am sorry that you are not a good editor and dont like others making articles better, but stop vandalizing pages by reverting good edits. I am hesitant to give you a warning, but I will. Frankly, its people like you who are driving editors away from Wikipedia and preventing so many articles from being improved. Go away.  TJ   Spyke   00:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't react like this to new editors. I react this way to editors who have been editing here for 7-odd years and are among the top 400 most prolific editors and who have received a shocking number of warnings and frank blocks including an indef block. You obviously know better than to persist in these games but yet you continue. AGF only extends so far. You clearly have no regard for community guidelines founded on consensus and are only interested in your own editorial decisions. I'm sorry that you decided to take this route. It was a very poor decision on your part. -Thibbs (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, to Derby Stallion (series) is full of unhelpful changes as per WP:NOTBROKEN.  Amalthea  09:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, I see no unhelpful edits. I will not pretend 100% of my edits have been helpful, but ask any average editor and that change is nothing but helpful. And frankly, you shouldnt drive away good editors since fewer and fewer people are editing Wikipedia now. I also notice that I only get hounded when I mass edit articles, I dont get harassed when I only edit a few articles a day.  TJ   Spyke   20:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "It is likewise unhelpful to edit visible links for no reason other than to avoid redirects." Amalthea  22:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A great majority of your NOTBROKEN violations are harmful actually. Try actually reading the guideline. You might be surprised to discover that there are at least six explicitly listed reasons not to change (bypass) redirects. One obvious one is that you are whitewashing usage stats - an activity that is at best completely pointless. But more often it's not completely harmless. It's directly harmful because it obscures the need for new articles on topics that aren't covered and it hides more appropriate and thus needed page-moves.
 * How on earth could these violations be "nothing but helpful"? I can't think of a single way that they help. Correcting incorrect titles or misspelled words or redirect like that is one thing, but how does it help anybody if you change horse breaking to horse training (to take a random example from the Derby Stallion article)? It hides the fact that there is no article on horse breaking - a clearly distinct concept from horse training and it reduces the likelihood that anyone will write an article on horse breaking. In what world does that help in any way whatsoever? At very best it's a completely pointless time-wasting activity. And it's one that you have been warned over and over and over again to stop. Does the consensus of your fellow editor on this issue really matter so little to you that you are unwilling to put an end to this distinctly non-helpful activity? Does the possibility that you may get blocked for a 24th (!!!) time mean nothing to you? I hope I'm not overreacting here, but I find your conduct in this one trivial editorial area to be truly incomprehensible. -Thibbs (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been careful to avoid those types of link changes. How is changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3" doing any harm? There is never gonna be a "Playstation 3" article, ever. And in that Derby Stallion article, changing "PlayStation" to "PlayStation (console)" IS directly helpful and needed because the latter refers to the game system called PlayStation and the former refers to the general product line. Or changing links to "Famicom" to be "Nintendo Entertainment System|Famicom", there will never be a separate Famicom article because it's just the Japanese name of the NES. Sometimes I make mistakes (like with the horse breaking one), but I see it as vandalism when editors revert the whole edit instead of just specific link changes they see as bad.  TJ   Spyke   15:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Look I recognize that apart from this one issue (and I guess the 3RR stuff from your past that I think you've mostly stopped now) you are a good editor. And I also recognize that you're human and that you may make mistakes. But seeing as how you've made so many many mistakes in this one particular area I would seriously recommend avoiding it altogether. Just skimming the cleanups you've performed since you were last unblocked, it's apparent that the large majority of the redirect "fixes" you performed were potentially harmful. And a tiny minority of them are helpful in any way.
 * Is there a reason you feel compelled to change the redirects? I assume it's not just to boost your edit count, right? But is it just because it looks ugly on WPCleaner? Or do you really think that this is somehow helpful? If you do think it is helpful then have you considered making the case to change the guidelines at WP:NOTBROKEN? Because there are only 2 listed exceptions to that guideline currently. I wouldn't say that this is a complete list of all good exceptions, though. Your example of changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3", for instance, seems to me to be correcting a misspelling (or really a mis-capitalization). And I think that this is helpful and that it should be listed as an exception to WP:NOTBROKEN.
 * Why don't you and I try to come up with some exceptions that we could propose to the community together to improve the guidelines so that you're not constantly violating them? If you could come up with a reason why changing "video arcade" to "amusement arcade" or how changing "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System" or how changing "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" helps in any way then you could certainly make that suggestion as well. This would be a much much better way of approaching the problem than just ignoring everyone's warnings and getting banned over and over, don't you think? I'd be willing to help draft some proposed changes if you're willing to engage with me and explain why you feel compelled to violate this guideline. -Thibbs (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me (and withe something like the Dragon Quest, it's because the series name in English was Dragon Warrior before the the Dragon Quest VIII. Amusement arcade and video arcade are essentially interchangeable terms like "pop" and "soda". As for Famicom, aren't we supposed to use English names of products if that is the best known name? Famicom is just the Japanese name of the NES, so I would think other WP policies supported changing them to NES). I've never bothered trying to have NOTBROKEN changed because I know from experience how hard it can be to have policies on Wikipedia changed. Maybe later today or something we can start working on this together to propose changes that seem like common sense to most people.  TJ   Spyke   16:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm encouraged by your attitude. I think we should discuss this thoroughly between us here before proposing anything so that we're clear in our arguments. It's OK if we disagree too, since we can propose changes individually to be accepted piecemeal rather than only as a single package. Anyway here are my thoughts on what you've said just above:
 * Like the term "video arcade", the other two are also examples of synonymous terms: Dragon Warrior is the North American term whereas the English term is actually Dragon Quest (the same is true for all European countries and Japan actually); Famicom is the original Japanese name for the NES. According to NOTBROKEN (point 6), the use of a synonymous redirect term provides useful information relating to usage of the term which can be considered as evidence for renaming the article. By systematically changing these links to the current non-redirect title, you are manipulating the usage statistics. As an example: it might be that the term "Dragon Quest" is better known than "Dragon Warrior", but because you'd have changed all of the "Dragon Quest" redirects into "Dragon Warrior," you would have eradicated this information and we would get a false impression that "Dragon Warrior" was the most commonly used term when in reality it was only the most commonly used because the statistics had been manipulated. If you don't like that example, try imagining the reverse. Imagine someone who called the game "Dragon Quest" trying to make the case that the article should be renamed. So first he would change all the links to redirects and then point to the incoming links as evidence that everyone calls it Dragon Quest. You can see how that would be a problem, right? I think what NOTBROKEN is saying is that it's safest if we rely on the real usage statistics by refraining from changing synonymous terms. They are synonyms, after all, so the meaning is identical, right?
 * But I think you might have a point if your central concern was consistency. There have been large discussions in the past regarding whether or not Wikipedia should preferentially use the term "Sega Genesis" or "Master Drive" for example. I'm sure the same could exist for terms from popular consumer products like "Famicom/NES" or "Dragon Quest/Warrior" as well. If there has been a community discussion where one term was decided as the preferred term then I think you could make the case that perhaps it would be a good idea to use a single term in the interest of consistency. Does that sound like it might be the core of your argument for these words? Or do you instead find a problem with NOTBROKEN's argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics?
 * Another redirect dodge I was hoping you could explain is when you changed "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games". These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN's argument that "Shortcuts or redirects to sections of articles ... should never be bypassed, as the section headings on the page may change over time [and] Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links" (point 4; emphasis and ellipses added). So you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions? -Thibbs (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi TJ Spyke. Just checking in again. What's happening now? Why has this conversation stalled? Have you had a chance to read what I just wrote above? I noticed that you've again resumed with the NOTBROKEN violations (swapping "United States of America" for "United States"). I don't think it's too much to ask that you completely refrain from this kind of edit until we've finished discussing our plans for how to present our argument at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. You are violating the guidelines when you make this kind of edit and you've been asked to stop over and over again. Please help me come up with some exceptions that we can present for consensus instead of just continuing to stubbornly violate the guidelines and hope that I'll go away. I won't. I really want to work with you here, but if I see it again I will bring it to AN/I. -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, I didnt do anything wrong with United States. It's the common name of the country and what everyone writes (hell, even the article uses the name) and I know that did NOT violate any rule. Frankly, saying that deleting two words so it uses the common name is wrong, is like saying you can't edit a article to fix a spelling mistake. Might as well freeze all editing. Did I somehow violate it in another article when I changed Major League Baseball to Major League Baseball ? Anyways, i've been busy. But im free now.  TJ   Spyke   15:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Repairing broken wikilinks is not a violation of NOTBROKEN, but changing from one synonymous term (like the official name of a country) to another synonymous term (like the common name for a country) for the same target article is definitely a violation of NOTBROKEN. I don't mean this to sound rude, but you have to accept the fact that your judgment on whether or not a redirect "fix" violates NOTBROKEN is clearly quite poor. I strongly urge you to avoid making those kinds of edits even if you are certain that you're in the right because you are obviously unable to differentiate between violations and non-violations. Anyway I'm glad to hear that you're free now and I'm eager to get to work on the exceptions. -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding Dragon Warrior/Quest, it is not true that Quest was common in European countries. The first game in the series even RELEASED in Europe was Dragon Warrior Monsters in 1999 (where it used "Warrior"), they didnt get another one until Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King (which was when Square Enix FIRST used the "Quest" name outside of Japan). So considering that for almost 20 years the only English name of the series was "Warrior", it makes sense for the ones released with the Warrior name to use that. As for exceptions to NOTBROKEN:


 * I think fixing spelling mistakes and capitalization (i.e. Playstation to PlayStation) are good ones that are not controversial.
 * Hmmm, maybe switching some to the most common name can be OK (though within the right context)
 * Sometimes things will never get an article. I.e. a character who appeared once on a TV show 20 years ago will probably never get an article as they are not notable enough, but they might have an entry in a article about characters from that show. Is it a problem to change a link to that section specifically?
 * If a product is released under one name in most of the world, shouldn't it be OK to write that as the name? I.e. NES/Famicom. Famicom is the Japanese name of the system, but they are still the same system. Doesn't it make sense to change the links to NES? It's especially ridiculous when some articles say a game was released on the NES and Famicom (implying they are different).

Maybe others, but these are off the top of my head.  TJ   Spyke   15:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All PAL versions of the main series are called "Dragon Quest," but that's quite beside the point. The point is that these are synonymous terms and "fixing" them to avoid the redirect violates NOTBROKEN point #6. Unless there has been a discussion leading to a consistency-based preference for one term over the other, the term used by the first European spinoff title has no significance whatsoever and the redirect should not be altered. But this brings me to the question I asked last week:
 * Is switching "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" (or "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System", etc.) something that you have been doing in the interest of inter-article consistency? Is that the core of your argument? Or do you simply reject NOTBROKEN's point #6 (i.e. the argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics)?
 * And as long as I'm re-asking questions from last week,...
 * Could you explain your thought process behind changing "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games"? These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN point #4 (described in last week's comment above). Do you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions?
 * Regarding your exceptions, I agree strongly with the first one (spelling & capitalization). That's definitely going into the final draft of our proposal. I also think that the alteration of redirect terms to reflect a consistent consensus-based terminology (if indeed such a consensus exists) is a good idea. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
 * The other three points you bring up are kind of confusing for me. I don't really think you've presented any argument for making them into exceptions. Basically your reasoning appears to boil down to "Let's make these into exceptions, because why not?" The problem with this is that NOTBROKEN is a consensus-based guideline. Nobody would take us seriously if we proposed exceptions to it without actually giving concrete reasons why the exceptions are needed. The answer to your "is it a problem?" and "shouldn't it be OK?" questions above would be answered by the editors at NOTBROKEN with "Yes it's a problem (see point #4), and no it's not OK (see point #6)." These are consensus-based views on those exact topics.
 * To create an exception we can't just ignore consensus. We have to find a reason that the consensus view is too broad and that in narrowly definable situations the general rules at NOTBROKEN should be excepted. Then we have to convince others based on solid reasoning. If there is no way to distinguish the area to which the rule applies from the area to which the exception applies then we have to propose knocking down part of the rules which will be a much more difficult task and will absolutely require ironclad arguments, not just "why not?" In addition to answering the questions I bulleted above, could you please try to think of specific reasons why we need (or how it would be helpful to have) an exception for common names, obscure aspects, and synonymous terms? -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again TJ Spyke. What is your schedule like? Are you going to have any free time in the next few weeks? I'd like to move forward with our plans regarding the development of a few more exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN. It's been nearly a month since we began talking about this, but if we're to move this forward we have to actually discuss it. I don't want to do this without your help. In fact most of my interest in getting this done is to help editors like you who seem to have problems with the current guidelines. Is this something that still interests you? When will you be available to answer questions like those I asked in the last post? Please don't just leave me hanging here. -Thibbs (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well while I'm waiting for word from you on some kind of timeframe I noticed that you'd performed a few more redirect "fixes" since I last asked you to stop and I can report that I agree most of them. But edits like this and this suggest further exceptions to the rule. From the first of those two links (relinking to the actual page name on a dab page), I think this brings up a good point - that we should add an exception for disambiguation pages per WP:PIPING. The second one (changing a link to a plural term into a link to the singular) looks like just another "fix" for reasons of your own. Can you explain that change? Was there a reason you decided to again violate NOTBROKEN in that case? For all I know there may be policy/guideline supporting that edit but if so then this suggests another good exception. -Thibbs (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and  claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place and second place  both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 16:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

When are you available to discuss the WP:NOTBROKEN exceptions?
Hi again TJ Spyke, sorry to keep bumping your talk page, but I'm concerned that my last post may have gotten lost in the shuffle due to the changes in the message alert banner and since my post is no longer at the bottom of your page. Basically I'm wondering if you intend to continue with our discussions regarding exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN and, if so, I'm wondering when you'll be available to discuss. I'm not really interested in making this into a several-month-long project. Right now we have only a single exception that we both agree on. I've proposed two other based on violative edits of yours that happen to I agree with, and I assume we'd be in agreement on those but I'd like your feedback. I've also suggested that you need to clarify a number of the suggestions you'd made earlier. Do you intend to clarify those or should we just forget about them? I'm perfectly willing to make the proposal to alter the guidelines myself, but considering that you are the one who is constantly violating NOTBROKEN, I'm still hoping that you will be motivated to help me come up with a good set of exceptions. If you don't "buy into" and take some degree of ownership of the proposal yourself then I'm gravely concerned that you'll go back to your egregious violations the moment you think nobody is watching. Please let me know when you will be available to discuss this proposal. -Thibbs (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Tomorrow or Thur should be good for me. I've just been real busy with real life lately (only having a few mins at a time to even come on Wikipedia).  TJ   Spyke   19:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

OK so as I see it we've agreed to the following exception: And based on edits you've made that violate NOTBROKEN but that I agree with I've come up with the following two exceptions that I hope you'll give me input on: Beyond these, you have also suggested exceptions for the following: And you've made recent edits reflecting personal exceptions of your to the following: I don't understand the need for any of these later sets of exceptions and so you can either explain why they are needed/helpful or we can forget about them. In the meanwhile I see that yesterday and today have been busy days for you in terms of further violations of NOTBROKEN (e.g. "Alyattes II" -> "Alyattes of Lydia"; "Battle of Narvik" -> "Battles of Narvik"; "James McDougal" -> "Jim McDougal", etc., etc.) which saddens me. Because I've asked you repeatedly to avoid making these kinds of edits while we're in discussion on this topic and because you've continued to make them in great numbers I hope you can understand my frustration with your behavior. I had really hoped to make this a quick ~1-month discussion but due to your prolonged absences and your flagrant rule violation when you are around, I've decided to drop a note at AN/I. I'm still hopeful that we can discuss this issue and make some of the proposals listed above, but because I'm not as free from now until September I feel as though we need some extra third-party attention on the situation. I hope we can get this situation resolved very quickly. -Thibbs (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Common names
 * Obscure aspects that may never get a full article
 * Synonymous terms that are used more in one country than another
 * Synonymous terms generally
 * Plurals
 * The AN/I thread is here. Feel free to add your thoughts to the thread. -Thibbs (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Well Thursday has come and gone and now Friday is almost over. I'm disappointed that you weren't able to find the time to discuss the proposals any further, and now I see that you've been given an indefinite block. As I said at the AN/I, this wasn't what I had requested but I do understand why the community saw fit to apply this remedy. I am still open to your thoughts on R2D exceptions but I can understand if you wish to end our conversation considering that you are no longer welcome to edit. Either way I do intend to make at least the three proposals listed above. I'm sorry that this whole mess ended the way it did. -Thibbs (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

HELP Keep a Social Media War off Wikipedia
There appears to be a Social Media War that has been brought here to Wikipedia, and negative info is being left on the Michelle Borth page that is not necessary. You came to me a few years ago, explaining the boundaries of Wikipedia. Well it appears that they are being broken on Michelle's page. Any input, feedback would help. This little war/argument has gone too far especially now that is being brought to other sites like Wikipedia. This particular user is claiming I have no right to remove the negative info about Michelle, regardless of whether it is true or not, until it is discussed. I feel that if me and this user attempted to discuss, it will get very heated, and you seem to really know ur way, I'd appreciate it Taker22 (talk) 10:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Ashley Fliehr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Providence High School


 * List of acronyms: W (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to WWF


 * Takeshi's Castle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Fuji

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Question about cleanup process
Hi TJ Spyke, I noticed that you've been cleaning up numerous articles today and I was curious how you were doing it. Is it all by hand or do you use a program? Specifically I'm curious how you check the wikilinks. Are you testing each one individually or is there a tool you have that highlights all redirects? -Thibbs (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I use WPCleaner to check articles, but there are some edits that can't be made with it (like spellchecking, typos, etc.), so I then manually edit it after (essentially, I copy and paste the results from WPCleaner, then continue editing the article).  TJ   Spyke   21:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. Is WPCleaner something that you can download from a Wikimedia site/affiliate or should I just Google it if I want to find it? -Thibbs (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here you go: WPCleaner.  TJ   Spyke   21:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm sorry to say I've reverted your edit at the Derby Stallion article yet again. The links that you are "fixing" are indeed redirect links. And per WP:NOTBROKEN, redirects within an article are not supposed to be changed so that they point to the target article instead. There are a number of reasons why this is harmful to Wikipedia and they're clearly spelled out under WP:NOTBROKEN. This has become a problem in the past with users accidentally abusing the Navigation popup tool to "fix" redirects as you're doing and the result was this page. This is actually the reason I was asking above what tool you were using. I was curious to see what other tools were being subjected to this kind of abuse. The WPCleaner talk page is filled with comments regarding users mistakenly "fixing" redirects (e.g. 1, 2, 3, and many more in the archives from 2008 and earlier). The thing is... I've already explained all of this to you in the past (see e.g. 1 and 2). And I know you are aware of this issue because you have already received a final warning on the subject. So I really don't see how what you are doing could be considered good faith editing. Your editing is contrary to the guidelines and you have been repeatedly told this and warned to stop. Normally I'd suggest trying to get the guidelines changed before carrying on in this way, but in this case from your block log it's clear to me that you've consciously decided to change matters unilaterally rather than by seeking consensus. For this reason I've requested administrative action. -Thibbs (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, you did not read NOTBROKEN correctly at all. I have not been making the kinds of edits that got me into trouble before, I have been careful to only makes ones that follow the guidelines. I am sorry that you are not a good editor and dont like others making articles better, but stop vandalizing pages by reverting good edits. I am hesitant to give you a warning, but I will. Frankly, its people like you who are driving editors away from Wikipedia and preventing so many articles from being improved. Go away.  TJ   Spyke   00:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't react like this to new editors. I react this way to editors who have been editing here for 7-odd years and are among the top 400 most prolific editors and who have received a shocking number of warnings and frank blocks including an indef block. You obviously know better than to persist in these games but yet you continue. AGF only extends so far. You clearly have no regard for community guidelines founded on consensus and are only interested in your own editorial decisions. I'm sorry that you decided to take this route. It was a very poor decision on your part. -Thibbs (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, to Derby Stallion (series) is full of unhelpful changes as per WP:NOTBROKEN.  Amalthea  09:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, I see no unhelpful edits. I will not pretend 100% of my edits have been helpful, but ask any average editor and that change is nothing but helpful. And frankly, you shouldnt drive away good editors since fewer and fewer people are editing Wikipedia now. I also notice that I only get hounded when I mass edit articles, I dont get harassed when I only edit a few articles a day.  TJ   Spyke   20:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "It is likewise unhelpful to edit visible links for no reason other than to avoid redirects." Amalthea  22:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A great majority of your NOTBROKEN violations are harmful actually. Try actually reading the guideline. You might be surprised to discover that there are at least six explicitly listed reasons not to change (bypass) redirects. One obvious one is that you are whitewashing usage stats - an activity that is at best completely pointless. But more often it's not completely harmless. It's directly harmful because it obscures the need for new articles on topics that aren't covered and it hides more appropriate and thus needed page-moves.
 * How on earth could these violations be "nothing but helpful"? I can't think of a single way that they help. Correcting incorrect titles or misspelled words or redirect like that is one thing, but how does it help anybody if you change horse breaking to horse training (to take a random example from the Derby Stallion article)? It hides the fact that there is no article on horse breaking - a clearly distinct concept from horse training and it reduces the likelihood that anyone will write an article on horse breaking. In what world does that help in any way whatsoever? At very best it's a completely pointless time-wasting activity. And it's one that you have been warned over and over and over again to stop. Does the consensus of your fellow editor on this issue really matter so little to you that you are unwilling to put an end to this distinctly non-helpful activity? Does the possibility that you may get blocked for a 24th (!!!) time mean nothing to you? I hope I'm not overreacting here, but I find your conduct in this one trivial editorial area to be truly incomprehensible. -Thibbs (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been careful to avoid those types of link changes. How is changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3" doing any harm? There is never gonna be a "Playstation 3" article, ever. And in that Derby Stallion article, changing "PlayStation" to "PlayStation (console)" IS directly helpful and needed because the latter refers to the game system called PlayStation and the former refers to the general product line. Or changing links to "Famicom" to be "Nintendo Entertainment System|Famicom", there will never be a separate Famicom article because it's just the Japanese name of the NES. Sometimes I make mistakes (like with the horse breaking one), but I see it as vandalism when editors revert the whole edit instead of just specific link changes they see as bad.  TJ   Spyke   15:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Look I recognize that apart from this one issue (and I guess the 3RR stuff from your past that I think you've mostly stopped now) you are a good editor. And I also recognize that you're human and that you may make mistakes. But seeing as how you've made so many many mistakes in this one particular area I would seriously recommend avoiding it altogether. Just skimming the cleanups you've performed since you were last unblocked, it's apparent that the large majority of the redirect "fixes" you performed were potentially harmful. And a tiny minority of them are helpful in any way.
 * Is there a reason you feel compelled to change the redirects? I assume it's not just to boost your edit count, right? But is it just because it looks ugly on WPCleaner? Or do you really think that this is somehow helpful? If you do think it is helpful then have you considered making the case to change the guidelines at WP:NOTBROKEN? Because there are only 2 listed exceptions to that guideline currently. I wouldn't say that this is a complete list of all good exceptions, though. Your example of changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3", for instance, seems to me to be correcting a misspelling (or really a mis-capitalization). And I think that this is helpful and that it should be listed as an exception to WP:NOTBROKEN.
 * Why don't you and I try to come up with some exceptions that we could propose to the community together to improve the guidelines so that you're not constantly violating them? If you could come up with a reason why changing "video arcade" to "amusement arcade" or how changing "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System" or how changing "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" helps in any way then you could certainly make that suggestion as well. This would be a much much better way of approaching the problem than just ignoring everyone's warnings and getting banned over and over, don't you think? I'd be willing to help draft some proposed changes if you're willing to engage with me and explain why you feel compelled to violate this guideline. -Thibbs (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me (and withe something like the Dragon Quest, it's because the series name in English was Dragon Warrior before the the Dragon Quest VIII. Amusement arcade and video arcade are essentially interchangeable terms like "pop" and "soda". As for Famicom, aren't we supposed to use English names of products if that is the best known name? Famicom is just the Japanese name of the NES, so I would think other WP policies supported changing them to NES). I've never bothered trying to have NOTBROKEN changed because I know from experience how hard it can be to have policies on Wikipedia changed. Maybe later today or something we can start working on this together to propose changes that seem like common sense to most people.  TJ   Spyke   16:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm encouraged by your attitude. I think we should discuss this thoroughly between us here before proposing anything so that we're clear in our arguments. It's OK if we disagree too, since we can propose changes individually to be accepted piecemeal rather than only as a single package. Anyway here are my thoughts on what you've said just above:
 * Like the term "video arcade", the other two are also examples of synonymous terms: Dragon Warrior is the North American term whereas the English term is actually Dragon Quest (the same is true for all European countries and Japan actually); Famicom is the original Japanese name for the NES. According to NOTBROKEN (point 6), the use of a synonymous redirect term provides useful information relating to usage of the term which can be considered as evidence for renaming the article. By systematically changing these links to the current non-redirect title, you are manipulating the usage statistics. As an example: it might be that the term "Dragon Quest" is better known than "Dragon Warrior", but because you'd have changed all of the "Dragon Quest" redirects into "Dragon Warrior," you would have eradicated this information and we would get a false impression that "Dragon Warrior" was the most commonly used term when in reality it was only the most commonly used because the statistics had been manipulated. If you don't like that example, try imagining the reverse. Imagine someone who called the game "Dragon Quest" trying to make the case that the article should be renamed. So first he would change all the links to redirects and then point to the incoming links as evidence that everyone calls it Dragon Quest. You can see how that would be a problem, right? I think what NOTBROKEN is saying is that it's safest if we rely on the real usage statistics by refraining from changing synonymous terms. They are synonyms, after all, so the meaning is identical, right?
 * But I think you might have a point if your central concern was consistency. There have been large discussions in the past regarding whether or not Wikipedia should preferentially use the term "Sega Genesis" or "Master Drive" for example. I'm sure the same could exist for terms from popular consumer products like "Famicom/NES" or "Dragon Quest/Warrior" as well. If there has been a community discussion where one term was decided as the preferred term then I think you could make the case that perhaps it would be a good idea to use a single term in the interest of consistency. Does that sound like it might be the core of your argument for these words? Or do you instead find a problem with NOTBROKEN's argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics?
 * Another redirect dodge I was hoping you could explain is when you changed "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games". These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN's argument that "Shortcuts or redirects to sections of articles ... should never be bypassed, as the section headings on the page may change over time [and] Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links" (point 4; emphasis and ellipses added). So you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions? -Thibbs (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi TJ Spyke. Just checking in again. What's happening now? Why has this conversation stalled? Have you had a chance to read what I just wrote above? I noticed that you've again resumed with the NOTBROKEN violations (swapping "United States of America" for "United States"). I don't think it's too much to ask that you completely refrain from this kind of edit until we've finished discussing our plans for how to present our argument at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. You are violating the guidelines when you make this kind of edit and you've been asked to stop over and over again. Please help me come up with some exceptions that we can present for consensus instead of just continuing to stubbornly violate the guidelines and hope that I'll go away. I won't. I really want to work with you here, but if I see it again I will bring it to AN/I. -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, I didnt do anything wrong with United States. It's the common name of the country and what everyone writes (hell, even the article uses the name) and I know that did NOT violate any rule. Frankly, saying that deleting two words so it uses the common name is wrong, is like saying you can't edit a article to fix a spelling mistake. Might as well freeze all editing. Did I somehow violate it in another article when I changed Major League Baseball to Major League Baseball ? Anyways, i've been busy. But im free now.  TJ   Spyke   15:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Repairing broken wikilinks is not a violation of NOTBROKEN, but changing from one synonymous term (like the official name of a country) to another synonymous term (like the common name for a country) for the same target article is definitely a violation of NOTBROKEN. I don't mean this to sound rude, but you have to accept the fact that your judgment on whether or not a redirect "fix" violates NOTBROKEN is clearly quite poor. I strongly urge you to avoid making those kinds of edits even if you are certain that you're in the right because you are obviously unable to differentiate between violations and non-violations. Anyway I'm glad to hear that you're free now and I'm eager to get to work on the exceptions. -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding Dragon Warrior/Quest, it is not true that Quest was common in European countries. The first game in the series even RELEASED in Europe was Dragon Warrior Monsters in 1999 (where it used "Warrior"), they didnt get another one until Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King (which was when Square Enix FIRST used the "Quest" name outside of Japan). So considering that for almost 20 years the only English name of the series was "Warrior", it makes sense for the ones released with the Warrior name to use that. As for exceptions to NOTBROKEN:


 * I think fixing spelling mistakes and capitalization (i.e. Playstation to PlayStation) are good ones that are not controversial.
 * Hmmm, maybe switching some to the most common name can be OK (though within the right context)
 * Sometimes things will never get an article. I.e. a character who appeared once on a TV show 20 years ago will probably never get an article as they are not notable enough, but they might have an entry in a article about characters from that show. Is it a problem to change a link to that section specifically?
 * If a product is released under one name in most of the world, shouldn't it be OK to write that as the name? I.e. NES/Famicom. Famicom is the Japanese name of the system, but they are still the same system. Doesn't it make sense to change the links to NES? It's especially ridiculous when some articles say a game was released on the NES and Famicom (implying they are different).

Maybe others, but these are off the top of my head.  TJ   Spyke   15:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All PAL versions of the main series are called "Dragon Quest," but that's quite beside the point. The point is that these are synonymous terms and "fixing" them to avoid the redirect violates NOTBROKEN point #6. Unless there has been a discussion leading to a consistency-based preference for one term over the other, the term used by the first European spinoff title has no significance whatsoever and the redirect should not be altered. But this brings me to the question I asked last week:
 * Is switching "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" (or "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System", etc.) something that you have been doing in the interest of inter-article consistency? Is that the core of your argument? Or do you simply reject NOTBROKEN's point #6 (i.e. the argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics)?
 * And as long as I'm re-asking questions from last week,...
 * Could you explain your thought process behind changing "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games"? These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN point #4 (described in last week's comment above). Do you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions?
 * Regarding your exceptions, I agree strongly with the first one (spelling & capitalization). That's definitely going into the final draft of our proposal. I also think that the alteration of redirect terms to reflect a consistent consensus-based terminology (if indeed such a consensus exists) is a good idea. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
 * The other three points you bring up are kind of confusing for me. I don't really think you've presented any argument for making them into exceptions. Basically your reasoning appears to boil down to "Let's make these into exceptions, because why not?" The problem with this is that NOTBROKEN is a consensus-based guideline. Nobody would take us seriously if we proposed exceptions to it without actually giving concrete reasons why the exceptions are needed. The answer to your "is it a problem?" and "shouldn't it be OK?" questions above would be answered by the editors at NOTBROKEN with "Yes it's a problem (see point #4), and no it's not OK (see point #6)." These are consensus-based views on those exact topics.
 * To create an exception we can't just ignore consensus. We have to find a reason that the consensus view is too broad and that in narrowly definable situations the general rules at NOTBROKEN should be excepted. Then we have to convince others based on solid reasoning. If there is no way to distinguish the area to which the rule applies from the area to which the exception applies then we have to propose knocking down part of the rules which will be a much more difficult task and will absolutely require ironclad arguments, not just "why not?" In addition to answering the questions I bulleted above, could you please try to think of specific reasons why we need (or how it would be helpful to have) an exception for common names, obscure aspects, and synonymous terms? -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again TJ Spyke. What is your schedule like? Are you going to have any free time in the next few weeks? I'd like to move forward with our plans regarding the development of a few more exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN. It's been nearly a month since we began talking about this, but if we're to move this forward we have to actually discuss it. I don't want to do this without your help. In fact most of my interest in getting this done is to help editors like you who seem to have problems with the current guidelines. Is this something that still interests you? When will you be available to answer questions like those I asked in the last post? Please don't just leave me hanging here. -Thibbs (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well while I'm waiting for word from you on some kind of timeframe I noticed that you'd performed a few more redirect "fixes" since I last asked you to stop and I can report that I agree most of them. But edits like this and this suggest further exceptions to the rule. From the first of those two links (relinking to the actual page name on a dab page), I think this brings up a good point - that we should add an exception for disambiguation pages per WP:PIPING. The second one (changing a link to a plural term into a link to the singular) looks like just another "fix" for reasons of your own. Can you explain that change? Was there a reason you decided to again violate NOTBROKEN in that case? For all I know there may be policy/guideline supporting that edit but if so then this suggests another good exception. -Thibbs (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and  claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place and second place  both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 16:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

When are you available to discuss the WP:NOTBROKEN exceptions?
Hi again TJ Spyke, sorry to keep bumping your talk page, but I'm concerned that my last post may have gotten lost in the shuffle due to the changes in the message alert banner and since my post is no longer at the bottom of your page. Basically I'm wondering if you intend to continue with our discussions regarding exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN and, if so, I'm wondering when you'll be available to discuss. I'm not really interested in making this into a several-month-long project. Right now we have only a single exception that we both agree on. I've proposed two other based on violative edits of yours that happen to I agree with, and I assume we'd be in agreement on those but I'd like your feedback. I've also suggested that you need to clarify a number of the suggestions you'd made earlier. Do you intend to clarify those or should we just forget about them? I'm perfectly willing to make the proposal to alter the guidelines myself, but considering that you are the one who is constantly violating NOTBROKEN, I'm still hoping that you will be motivated to help me come up with a good set of exceptions. If you don't "buy into" and take some degree of ownership of the proposal yourself then I'm gravely concerned that you'll go back to your egregious violations the moment you think nobody is watching. Please let me know when you will be available to discuss this proposal. -Thibbs (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Tomorrow or Thur should be good for me. I've just been real busy with real life lately (only having a few mins at a time to even come on Wikipedia).  TJ   Spyke   19:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

OK so as I see it we've agreed to the following exception: And based on edits you've made that violate NOTBROKEN but that I agree with I've come up with the following two exceptions that I hope you'll give me input on: Beyond these, you have also suggested exceptions for the following: And you've made recent edits reflecting personal exceptions of your to the following: I don't understand the need for any of these later sets of exceptions and so you can either explain why they are needed/helpful or we can forget about them. In the meanwhile I see that yesterday and today have been busy days for you in terms of further violations of NOTBROKEN (e.g. "Alyattes II" -> "Alyattes of Lydia"; "Battle of Narvik" -> "Battles of Narvik"; "James McDougal" -> "Jim McDougal", etc., etc.) which saddens me. Because I've asked you repeatedly to avoid making these kinds of edits while we're in discussion on this topic and because you've continued to make them in great numbers I hope you can understand my frustration with your behavior. I had really hoped to make this a quick ~1-month discussion but due to your prolonged absences and your flagrant rule violation when you are around, I've decided to drop a note at AN/I. I'm still hopeful that we can discuss this issue and make some of the proposals listed above, but because I'm not as free from now until September I feel as though we need some extra third-party attention on the situation. I hope we can get this situation resolved very quickly. -Thibbs (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Common names
 * Obscure aspects that may never get a full article
 * Synonymous terms that are used more in one country than another
 * Synonymous terms generally
 * Plurals
 * The AN/I thread is here. Feel free to add your thoughts to the thread. -Thibbs (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Well Thursday has come and gone and now Friday is almost over. I'm disappointed that you weren't able to find the time to discuss the proposals any further, and now I see that you've been given an indefinite block. As I said at the AN/I, this wasn't what I had requested but I do understand why the community saw fit to apply this remedy. I am still open to your thoughts on R2D exceptions but I can understand if you wish to end our conversation considering that you are no longer welcome to edit. Either way I do intend to make at least the three proposals listed above. I'm sorry that this whole mess ended the way it did. -Thibbs (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

HELP Keep a Social Media War off Wikipedia
There appears to be a Social Media War that has been brought here to Wikipedia, and negative info is being left on the Michelle Borth page that is not necessary. You came to me a few years ago, explaining the boundaries of Wikipedia. Well it appears that they are being broken on Michelle's page. Any input, feedback would help. This little war/argument has gone too far especially now that is being brought to other sites like Wikipedia. This particular user is claiming I have no right to remove the negative info about Michelle, regardless of whether it is true or not, until it is discussed. I feel that if me and this user attempted to discuss, it will get very heated, and you seem to really know ur way, I'd appreciate it Taker22 (talk) 10:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Continual redirect problems by User:TJ Spyke. Thank you. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 23:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're about to be blocked indefinitely. If I were you I'd be pleading my case at ANI. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Ashley Fliehr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Providence High School


 * List of acronyms: W (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to WWF


 * Takeshi's Castle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Fuji

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Question about cleanup process
Hi TJ Spyke, I noticed that you've been cleaning up numerous articles today and I was curious how you were doing it. Is it all by hand or do you use a program? Specifically I'm curious how you check the wikilinks. Are you testing each one individually or is there a tool you have that highlights all redirects? -Thibbs (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I use WPCleaner to check articles, but there are some edits that can't be made with it (like spellchecking, typos, etc.), so I then manually edit it after (essentially, I copy and paste the results from WPCleaner, then continue editing the article).  TJ   Spyke   21:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. Is WPCleaner something that you can download from a Wikimedia site/affiliate or should I just Google it if I want to find it? -Thibbs (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here you go: WPCleaner.  TJ   Spyke   21:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm sorry to say I've reverted your edit at the Derby Stallion article yet again. The links that you are "fixing" are indeed redirect links. And per WP:NOTBROKEN, redirects within an article are not supposed to be changed so that they point to the target article instead. There are a number of reasons why this is harmful to Wikipedia and they're clearly spelled out under WP:NOTBROKEN. This has become a problem in the past with users accidentally abusing the Navigation popup tool to "fix" redirects as you're doing and the result was this page. This is actually the reason I was asking above what tool you were using. I was curious to see what other tools were being subjected to this kind of abuse. The WPCleaner talk page is filled with comments regarding users mistakenly "fixing" redirects (e.g. 1, 2, 3, and many more in the archives from 2008 and earlier). The thing is... I've already explained all of this to you in the past (see e.g. 1 and 2). And I know you are aware of this issue because you have already received a final warning on the subject. So I really don't see how what you are doing could be considered good faith editing. Your editing is contrary to the guidelines and you have been repeatedly told this and warned to stop. Normally I'd suggest trying to get the guidelines changed before carrying on in this way, but in this case from your block log it's clear to me that you've consciously decided to change matters unilaterally rather than by seeking consensus. For this reason I've requested administrative action. -Thibbs (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, you did not read NOTBROKEN correctly at all. I have not been making the kinds of edits that got me into trouble before, I have been careful to only makes ones that follow the guidelines. I am sorry that you are not a good editor and dont like others making articles better, but stop vandalizing pages by reverting good edits. I am hesitant to give you a warning, but I will. Frankly, its people like you who are driving editors away from Wikipedia and preventing so many articles from being improved. Go away.  TJ   Spyke   00:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't react like this to new editors. I react this way to editors who have been editing here for 7-odd years and are among the top 400 most prolific editors and who have received a shocking number of warnings and frank blocks including an indef block. You obviously know better than to persist in these games but yet you continue. AGF only extends so far. You clearly have no regard for community guidelines founded on consensus and are only interested in your own editorial decisions. I'm sorry that you decided to take this route. It was a very poor decision on your part. -Thibbs (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, to Derby Stallion (series) is full of unhelpful changes as per WP:NOTBROKEN.  Amalthea  09:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, I see no unhelpful edits. I will not pretend 100% of my edits have been helpful, but ask any average editor and that change is nothing but helpful. And frankly, you shouldnt drive away good editors since fewer and fewer people are editing Wikipedia now. I also notice that I only get hounded when I mass edit articles, I dont get harassed when I only edit a few articles a day.  TJ   Spyke   20:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "It is likewise unhelpful to edit visible links for no reason other than to avoid redirects." Amalthea  22:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A great majority of your NOTBROKEN violations are harmful actually. Try actually reading the guideline. You might be surprised to discover that there are at least six explicitly listed reasons not to change (bypass) redirects. One obvious one is that you are whitewashing usage stats - an activity that is at best completely pointless. But more often it's not completely harmless. It's directly harmful because it obscures the need for new articles on topics that aren't covered and it hides more appropriate and thus needed page-moves.
 * How on earth could these violations be "nothing but helpful"? I can't think of a single way that they help. Correcting incorrect titles or misspelled words or redirect like that is one thing, but how does it help anybody if you change horse breaking to horse training (to take a random example from the Derby Stallion article)? It hides the fact that there is no article on horse breaking - a clearly distinct concept from horse training and it reduces the likelihood that anyone will write an article on horse breaking. In what world does that help in any way whatsoever? At very best it's a completely pointless time-wasting activity. And it's one that you have been warned over and over and over again to stop. Does the consensus of your fellow editor on this issue really matter so little to you that you are unwilling to put an end to this distinctly non-helpful activity? Does the possibility that you may get blocked for a 24th (!!!) time mean nothing to you? I hope I'm not overreacting here, but I find your conduct in this one trivial editorial area to be truly incomprehensible. -Thibbs (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been careful to avoid those types of link changes. How is changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3" doing any harm? There is never gonna be a "Playstation 3" article, ever. And in that Derby Stallion article, changing "PlayStation" to "PlayStation (console)" IS directly helpful and needed because the latter refers to the game system called PlayStation and the former refers to the general product line. Or changing links to "Famicom" to be "Nintendo Entertainment System|Famicom", there will never be a separate Famicom article because it's just the Japanese name of the NES. Sometimes I make mistakes (like with the horse breaking one), but I see it as vandalism when editors revert the whole edit instead of just specific link changes they see as bad.  TJ   Spyke   15:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Look I recognize that apart from this one issue (and I guess the 3RR stuff from your past that I think you've mostly stopped now) you are a good editor. And I also recognize that you're human and that you may make mistakes. But seeing as how you've made so many many mistakes in this one particular area I would seriously recommend avoiding it altogether. Just skimming the cleanups you've performed since you were last unblocked, it's apparent that the large majority of the redirect "fixes" you performed were potentially harmful. And a tiny minority of them are helpful in any way.
 * Is there a reason you feel compelled to change the redirects? I assume it's not just to boost your edit count, right? But is it just because it looks ugly on WPCleaner? Or do you really think that this is somehow helpful? If you do think it is helpful then have you considered making the case to change the guidelines at WP:NOTBROKEN? Because there are only 2 listed exceptions to that guideline currently. I wouldn't say that this is a complete list of all good exceptions, though. Your example of changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3", for instance, seems to me to be correcting a misspelling (or really a mis-capitalization). And I think that this is helpful and that it should be listed as an exception to WP:NOTBROKEN.
 * Why don't you and I try to come up with some exceptions that we could propose to the community together to improve the guidelines so that you're not constantly violating them? If you could come up with a reason why changing "video arcade" to "amusement arcade" or how changing "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System" or how changing "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" helps in any way then you could certainly make that suggestion as well. This would be a much much better way of approaching the problem than just ignoring everyone's warnings and getting banned over and over, don't you think? I'd be willing to help draft some proposed changes if you're willing to engage with me and explain why you feel compelled to violate this guideline. -Thibbs (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me (and withe something like the Dragon Quest, it's because the series name in English was Dragon Warrior before the the Dragon Quest VIII. Amusement arcade and video arcade are essentially interchangeable terms like "pop" and "soda". As for Famicom, aren't we supposed to use English names of products if that is the best known name? Famicom is just the Japanese name of the NES, so I would think other WP policies supported changing them to NES). I've never bothered trying to have NOTBROKEN changed because I know from experience how hard it can be to have policies on Wikipedia changed. Maybe later today or something we can start working on this together to propose changes that seem like common sense to most people.  TJ   Spyke   16:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm encouraged by your attitude. I think we should discuss this thoroughly between us here before proposing anything so that we're clear in our arguments. It's OK if we disagree too, since we can propose changes individually to be accepted piecemeal rather than only as a single package. Anyway here are my thoughts on what you've said just above:
 * Like the term "video arcade", the other two are also examples of synonymous terms: Dragon Warrior is the North American term whereas the English term is actually Dragon Quest (the same is true for all European countries and Japan actually); Famicom is the original Japanese name for the NES. According to NOTBROKEN (point 6), the use of a synonymous redirect term provides useful information relating to usage of the term which can be considered as evidence for renaming the article. By systematically changing these links to the current non-redirect title, you are manipulating the usage statistics. As an example: it might be that the term "Dragon Quest" is better known than "Dragon Warrior", but because you'd have changed all of the "Dragon Quest" redirects into "Dragon Warrior," you would have eradicated this information and we would get a false impression that "Dragon Warrior" was the most commonly used term when in reality it was only the most commonly used because the statistics had been manipulated. If you don't like that example, try imagining the reverse. Imagine someone who called the game "Dragon Quest" trying to make the case that the article should be renamed. So first he would change all the links to redirects and then point to the incoming links as evidence that everyone calls it Dragon Quest. You can see how that would be a problem, right? I think what NOTBROKEN is saying is that it's safest if we rely on the real usage statistics by refraining from changing synonymous terms. They are synonyms, after all, so the meaning is identical, right?
 * But I think you might have a point if your central concern was consistency. There have been large discussions in the past regarding whether or not Wikipedia should preferentially use the term "Sega Genesis" or "Master Drive" for example. I'm sure the same could exist for terms from popular consumer products like "Famicom/NES" or "Dragon Quest/Warrior" as well. If there has been a community discussion where one term was decided as the preferred term then I think you could make the case that perhaps it would be a good idea to use a single term in the interest of consistency. Does that sound like it might be the core of your argument for these words? Or do you instead find a problem with NOTBROKEN's argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics?
 * Another redirect dodge I was hoping you could explain is when you changed "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games". These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN's argument that "Shortcuts or redirects to sections of articles ... should never be bypassed, as the section headings on the page may change over time [and] Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links" (point 4; emphasis and ellipses added). So you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions? -Thibbs (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi TJ Spyke. Just checking in again. What's happening now? Why has this conversation stalled? Have you had a chance to read what I just wrote above? I noticed that you've again resumed with the NOTBROKEN violations (swapping "United States of America" for "United States"). I don't think it's too much to ask that you completely refrain from this kind of edit until we've finished discussing our plans for how to present our argument at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. You are violating the guidelines when you make this kind of edit and you've been asked to stop over and over again. Please help me come up with some exceptions that we can present for consensus instead of just continuing to stubbornly violate the guidelines and hope that I'll go away. I won't. I really want to work with you here, but if I see it again I will bring it to AN/I. -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, I didnt do anything wrong with United States. It's the common name of the country and what everyone writes (hell, even the article uses the name) and I know that did NOT violate any rule. Frankly, saying that deleting two words so it uses the common name is wrong, is like saying you can't edit a article to fix a spelling mistake. Might as well freeze all editing. Did I somehow violate it in another article when I changed Major League Baseball to Major League Baseball ? Anyways, i've been busy. But im free now.  TJ   Spyke   15:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Repairing broken wikilinks is not a violation of NOTBROKEN, but changing from one synonymous term (like the official name of a country) to another synonymous term (like the common name for a country) for the same target article is definitely a violation of NOTBROKEN. I don't mean this to sound rude, but you have to accept the fact that your judgment on whether or not a redirect "fix" violates NOTBROKEN is clearly quite poor. I strongly urge you to avoid making those kinds of edits even if you are certain that you're in the right because you are obviously unable to differentiate between violations and non-violations. Anyway I'm glad to hear that you're free now and I'm eager to get to work on the exceptions. -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding Dragon Warrior/Quest, it is not true that Quest was common in European countries. The first game in the series even RELEASED in Europe was Dragon Warrior Monsters in 1999 (where it used "Warrior"), they didnt get another one until Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King (which was when Square Enix FIRST used the "Quest" name outside of Japan). So considering that for almost 20 years the only English name of the series was "Warrior", it makes sense for the ones released with the Warrior name to use that. As for exceptions to NOTBROKEN:


 * I think fixing spelling mistakes and capitalization (i.e. Playstation to PlayStation) are good ones that are not controversial.
 * Hmmm, maybe switching some to the most common name can be OK (though within the right context)
 * Sometimes things will never get an article. I.e. a character who appeared once on a TV show 20 years ago will probably never get an article as they are not notable enough, but they might have an entry in a article about characters from that show. Is it a problem to change a link to that section specifically?
 * If a product is released under one name in most of the world, shouldn't it be OK to write that as the name? I.e. NES/Famicom. Famicom is the Japanese name of the system, but they are still the same system. Doesn't it make sense to change the links to NES? It's especially ridiculous when some articles say a game was released on the NES and Famicom (implying they are different).

Maybe others, but these are off the top of my head.  TJ   Spyke   15:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All PAL versions of the main series are called "Dragon Quest," but that's quite beside the point. The point is that these are synonymous terms and "fixing" them to avoid the redirect violates NOTBROKEN point #6. Unless there has been a discussion leading to a consistency-based preference for one term over the other, the term used by the first European spinoff title has no significance whatsoever and the redirect should not be altered. But this brings me to the question I asked last week:
 * Is switching "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" (or "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System", etc.) something that you have been doing in the interest of inter-article consistency? Is that the core of your argument? Or do you simply reject NOTBROKEN's point #6 (i.e. the argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics)?
 * And as long as I'm re-asking questions from last week,...
 * Could you explain your thought process behind changing "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games"? These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN point #4 (described in last week's comment above). Do you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions?
 * Regarding your exceptions, I agree strongly with the first one (spelling & capitalization). That's definitely going into the final draft of our proposal. I also think that the alteration of redirect terms to reflect a consistent consensus-based terminology (if indeed such a consensus exists) is a good idea. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
 * The other three points you bring up are kind of confusing for me. I don't really think you've presented any argument for making them into exceptions. Basically your reasoning appears to boil down to "Let's make these into exceptions, because why not?" The problem with this is that NOTBROKEN is a consensus-based guideline. Nobody would take us seriously if we proposed exceptions to it without actually giving concrete reasons why the exceptions are needed. The answer to your "is it a problem?" and "shouldn't it be OK?" questions above would be answered by the editors at NOTBROKEN with "Yes it's a problem (see point #4), and no it's not OK (see point #6)." These are consensus-based views on those exact topics.
 * To create an exception we can't just ignore consensus. We have to find a reason that the consensus view is too broad and that in narrowly definable situations the general rules at NOTBROKEN should be excepted. Then we have to convince others based on solid reasoning. If there is no way to distinguish the area to which the rule applies from the area to which the exception applies then we have to propose knocking down part of the rules which will be a much more difficult task and will absolutely require ironclad arguments, not just "why not?" In addition to answering the questions I bulleted above, could you please try to think of specific reasons why we need (or how it would be helpful to have) an exception for common names, obscure aspects, and synonymous terms? -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again TJ Spyke. What is your schedule like? Are you going to have any free time in the next few weeks? I'd like to move forward with our plans regarding the development of a few more exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN. It's been nearly a month since we began talking about this, but if we're to move this forward we have to actually discuss it. I don't want to do this without your help. In fact most of my interest in getting this done is to help editors like you who seem to have problems with the current guidelines. Is this something that still interests you? When will you be available to answer questions like those I asked in the last post? Please don't just leave me hanging here. -Thibbs (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well while I'm waiting for word from you on some kind of timeframe I noticed that you'd performed a few more redirect "fixes" since I last asked you to stop and I can report that I agree most of them. But edits like this and this suggest further exceptions to the rule. From the first of those two links (relinking to the actual page name on a dab page), I think this brings up a good point - that we should add an exception for disambiguation pages per WP:PIPING. The second one (changing a link to a plural term into a link to the singular) looks like just another "fix" for reasons of your own. Can you explain that change? Was there a reason you decided to again violate NOTBROKEN in that case? For all I know there may be policy/guideline supporting that edit but if so then this suggests another good exception. -Thibbs (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and  claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place and second place  both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 16:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

When are you available to discuss the WP:NOTBROKEN exceptions?
Hi again TJ Spyke, sorry to keep bumping your talk page, but I'm concerned that my last post may have gotten lost in the shuffle due to the changes in the message alert banner and since my post is no longer at the bottom of your page. Basically I'm wondering if you intend to continue with our discussions regarding exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN and, if so, I'm wondering when you'll be available to discuss. I'm not really interested in making this into a several-month-long project. Right now we have only a single exception that we both agree on. I've proposed two other based on violative edits of yours that happen to I agree with, and I assume we'd be in agreement on those but I'd like your feedback. I've also suggested that you need to clarify a number of the suggestions you'd made earlier. Do you intend to clarify those or should we just forget about them? I'm perfectly willing to make the proposal to alter the guidelines myself, but considering that you are the one who is constantly violating NOTBROKEN, I'm still hoping that you will be motivated to help me come up with a good set of exceptions. If you don't "buy into" and take some degree of ownership of the proposal yourself then I'm gravely concerned that you'll go back to your egregious violations the moment you think nobody is watching. Please let me know when you will be available to discuss this proposal. -Thibbs (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Tomorrow or Thur should be good for me. I've just been real busy with real life lately (only having a few mins at a time to even come on Wikipedia).  TJ   Spyke   19:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

OK so as I see it we've agreed to the following exception: And based on edits you've made that violate NOTBROKEN but that I agree with I've come up with the following two exceptions that I hope you'll give me input on: Beyond these, you have also suggested exceptions for the following: And you've made recent edits reflecting personal exceptions of your to the following: I don't understand the need for any of these later sets of exceptions and so you can either explain why they are needed/helpful or we can forget about them. In the meanwhile I see that yesterday and today have been busy days for you in terms of further violations of NOTBROKEN (e.g. "Alyattes II" -> "Alyattes of Lydia"; "Battle of Narvik" -> "Battles of Narvik"; "James McDougal" -> "Jim McDougal", etc., etc.) which saddens me. Because I've asked you repeatedly to avoid making these kinds of edits while we're in discussion on this topic and because you've continued to make them in great numbers I hope you can understand my frustration with your behavior. I had really hoped to make this a quick ~1-month discussion but due to your prolonged absences and your flagrant rule violation when you are around, I've decided to drop a note at AN/I. I'm still hopeful that we can discuss this issue and make some of the proposals listed above, but because I'm not as free from now until September I feel as though we need some extra third-party attention on the situation. I hope we can get this situation resolved very quickly. -Thibbs (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Common names
 * Obscure aspects that may never get a full article
 * Synonymous terms that are used more in one country than another
 * Synonymous terms generally
 * Plurals
 * The AN/I thread is here. Feel free to add your thoughts to the thread. -Thibbs (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Well Thursday has come and gone and now Friday is almost over. I'm disappointed that you weren't able to find the time to discuss the proposals any further, and now I see that you've been given an indefinite block. As I said at the AN/I, this wasn't what I had requested but I do understand why the community saw fit to apply this remedy. I am still open to your thoughts on R2D exceptions but I can understand if you wish to end our conversation considering that you are no longer welcome to edit. Either way I do intend to make at least the three proposals listed above. I'm sorry that this whole mess ended the way it did. -Thibbs (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

HELP Keep a Social Media War off Wikipedia
There appears to be a Social Media War that has been brought here to Wikipedia, and negative info is being left on the Michelle Borth page that is not necessary. You came to me a few years ago, explaining the boundaries of Wikipedia. Well it appears that they are being broken on Michelle's page. Any input, feedback would help. This little war/argument has gone too far especially now that is being brought to other sites like Wikipedia. This particular user is claiming I have no right to remove the negative info about Michelle, regardless of whether it is true or not, until it is discussed. I feel that if me and this user attempted to discuss, it will get very heated, and you seem to really know ur way, I'd appreciate it Taker22 (talk) 10:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Continual redirect problems by User:TJ Spyke. Thank you. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 23:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're about to be blocked indefinitely. If I were you I'd be pleading my case at ANI. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Ashley Fliehr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Providence High School


 * List of acronyms: W (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to WWF


 * Takeshi's Castle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Fuji

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Question about cleanup process
Hi TJ Spyke, I noticed that you've been cleaning up numerous articles today and I was curious how you were doing it. Is it all by hand or do you use a program? Specifically I'm curious how you check the wikilinks. Are you testing each one individually or is there a tool you have that highlights all redirects? -Thibbs (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I use WPCleaner to check articles, but there are some edits that can't be made with it (like spellchecking, typos, etc.), so I then manually edit it after (essentially, I copy and paste the results from WPCleaner, then continue editing the article).  TJ   Spyke   21:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. Is WPCleaner something that you can download from a Wikimedia site/affiliate or should I just Google it if I want to find it? -Thibbs (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here you go: WPCleaner.  TJ   Spyke   21:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm sorry to say I've reverted your edit at the Derby Stallion article yet again. The links that you are "fixing" are indeed redirect links. And per WP:NOTBROKEN, redirects within an article are not supposed to be changed so that they point to the target article instead. There are a number of reasons why this is harmful to Wikipedia and they're clearly spelled out under WP:NOTBROKEN. This has become a problem in the past with users accidentally abusing the Navigation popup tool to "fix" redirects as you're doing and the result was this page. This is actually the reason I was asking above what tool you were using. I was curious to see what other tools were being subjected to this kind of abuse. The WPCleaner talk page is filled with comments regarding users mistakenly "fixing" redirects (e.g. 1, 2, 3, and many more in the archives from 2008 and earlier). The thing is... I've already explained all of this to you in the past (see e.g. 1 and 2). And I know you are aware of this issue because you have already received a final warning on the subject. So I really don't see how what you are doing could be considered good faith editing. Your editing is contrary to the guidelines and you have been repeatedly told this and warned to stop. Normally I'd suggest trying to get the guidelines changed before carrying on in this way, but in this case from your block log it's clear to me that you've consciously decided to change matters unilaterally rather than by seeking consensus. For this reason I've requested administrative action. -Thibbs (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, you did not read NOTBROKEN correctly at all. I have not been making the kinds of edits that got me into trouble before, I have been careful to only makes ones that follow the guidelines. I am sorry that you are not a good editor and dont like others making articles better, but stop vandalizing pages by reverting good edits. I am hesitant to give you a warning, but I will. Frankly, its people like you who are driving editors away from Wikipedia and preventing so many articles from being improved. Go away.  TJ   Spyke   00:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't react like this to new editors. I react this way to editors who have been editing here for 7-odd years and are among the top 400 most prolific editors and who have received a shocking number of warnings and frank blocks including an indef block. You obviously know better than to persist in these games but yet you continue. AGF only extends so far. You clearly have no regard for community guidelines founded on consensus and are only interested in your own editorial decisions. I'm sorry that you decided to take this route. It was a very poor decision on your part. -Thibbs (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, to Derby Stallion (series) is full of unhelpful changes as per WP:NOTBROKEN.  Amalthea  09:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, I see no unhelpful edits. I will not pretend 100% of my edits have been helpful, but ask any average editor and that change is nothing but helpful. And frankly, you shouldnt drive away good editors since fewer and fewer people are editing Wikipedia now. I also notice that I only get hounded when I mass edit articles, I dont get harassed when I only edit a few articles a day.  TJ   Spyke   20:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "It is likewise unhelpful to edit visible links for no reason other than to avoid redirects." Amalthea  22:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A great majority of your NOTBROKEN violations are harmful actually. Try actually reading the guideline. You might be surprised to discover that there are at least six explicitly listed reasons not to change (bypass) redirects. One obvious one is that you are whitewashing usage stats - an activity that is at best completely pointless. But more often it's not completely harmless. It's directly harmful because it obscures the need for new articles on topics that aren't covered and it hides more appropriate and thus needed page-moves.
 * How on earth could these violations be "nothing but helpful"? I can't think of a single way that they help. Correcting incorrect titles or misspelled words or redirect like that is one thing, but how does it help anybody if you change horse breaking to horse training (to take a random example from the Derby Stallion article)? It hides the fact that there is no article on horse breaking - a clearly distinct concept from horse training and it reduces the likelihood that anyone will write an article on horse breaking. In what world does that help in any way whatsoever? At very best it's a completely pointless time-wasting activity. And it's one that you have been warned over and over and over again to stop. Does the consensus of your fellow editor on this issue really matter so little to you that you are unwilling to put an end to this distinctly non-helpful activity? Does the possibility that you may get blocked for a 24th (!!!) time mean nothing to you? I hope I'm not overreacting here, but I find your conduct in this one trivial editorial area to be truly incomprehensible. -Thibbs (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been careful to avoid those types of link changes. How is changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3" doing any harm? There is never gonna be a "Playstation 3" article, ever. And in that Derby Stallion article, changing "PlayStation" to "PlayStation (console)" IS directly helpful and needed because the latter refers to the game system called PlayStation and the former refers to the general product line. Or changing links to "Famicom" to be "Nintendo Entertainment System|Famicom", there will never be a separate Famicom article because it's just the Japanese name of the NES. Sometimes I make mistakes (like with the horse breaking one), but I see it as vandalism when editors revert the whole edit instead of just specific link changes they see as bad.  TJ   Spyke   15:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Look I recognize that apart from this one issue (and I guess the 3RR stuff from your past that I think you've mostly stopped now) you are a good editor. And I also recognize that you're human and that you may make mistakes. But seeing as how you've made so many many mistakes in this one particular area I would seriously recommend avoiding it altogether. Just skimming the cleanups you've performed since you were last unblocked, it's apparent that the large majority of the redirect "fixes" you performed were potentially harmful. And a tiny minority of them are helpful in any way.
 * Is there a reason you feel compelled to change the redirects? I assume it's not just to boost your edit count, right? But is it just because it looks ugly on WPCleaner? Or do you really think that this is somehow helpful? If you do think it is helpful then have you considered making the case to change the guidelines at WP:NOTBROKEN? Because there are only 2 listed exceptions to that guideline currently. I wouldn't say that this is a complete list of all good exceptions, though. Your example of changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3", for instance, seems to me to be correcting a misspelling (or really a mis-capitalization). And I think that this is helpful and that it should be listed as an exception to WP:NOTBROKEN.
 * Why don't you and I try to come up with some exceptions that we could propose to the community together to improve the guidelines so that you're not constantly violating them? If you could come up with a reason why changing "video arcade" to "amusement arcade" or how changing "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System" or how changing "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" helps in any way then you could certainly make that suggestion as well. This would be a much much better way of approaching the problem than just ignoring everyone's warnings and getting banned over and over, don't you think? I'd be willing to help draft some proposed changes if you're willing to engage with me and explain why you feel compelled to violate this guideline. -Thibbs (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me (and withe something like the Dragon Quest, it's because the series name in English was Dragon Warrior before the the Dragon Quest VIII. Amusement arcade and video arcade are essentially interchangeable terms like "pop" and "soda". As for Famicom, aren't we supposed to use English names of products if that is the best known name? Famicom is just the Japanese name of the NES, so I would think other WP policies supported changing them to NES). I've never bothered trying to have NOTBROKEN changed because I know from experience how hard it can be to have policies on Wikipedia changed. Maybe later today or something we can start working on this together to propose changes that seem like common sense to most people.  TJ   Spyke   16:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm encouraged by your attitude. I think we should discuss this thoroughly between us here before proposing anything so that we're clear in our arguments. It's OK if we disagree too, since we can propose changes individually to be accepted piecemeal rather than only as a single package. Anyway here are my thoughts on what you've said just above:
 * Like the term "video arcade", the other two are also examples of synonymous terms: Dragon Warrior is the North American term whereas the English term is actually Dragon Quest (the same is true for all European countries and Japan actually); Famicom is the original Japanese name for the NES. According to NOTBROKEN (point 6), the use of a synonymous redirect term provides useful information relating to usage of the term which can be considered as evidence for renaming the article. By systematically changing these links to the current non-redirect title, you are manipulating the usage statistics. As an example: it might be that the term "Dragon Quest" is better known than "Dragon Warrior", but because you'd have changed all of the "Dragon Quest" redirects into "Dragon Warrior," you would have eradicated this information and we would get a false impression that "Dragon Warrior" was the most commonly used term when in reality it was only the most commonly used because the statistics had been manipulated. If you don't like that example, try imagining the reverse. Imagine someone who called the game "Dragon Quest" trying to make the case that the article should be renamed. So first he would change all the links to redirects and then point to the incoming links as evidence that everyone calls it Dragon Quest. You can see how that would be a problem, right? I think what NOTBROKEN is saying is that it's safest if we rely on the real usage statistics by refraining from changing synonymous terms. They are synonyms, after all, so the meaning is identical, right?
 * But I think you might have a point if your central concern was consistency. There have been large discussions in the past regarding whether or not Wikipedia should preferentially use the term "Sega Genesis" or "Master Drive" for example. I'm sure the same could exist for terms from popular consumer products like "Famicom/NES" or "Dragon Quest/Warrior" as well. If there has been a community discussion where one term was decided as the preferred term then I think you could make the case that perhaps it would be a good idea to use a single term in the interest of consistency. Does that sound like it might be the core of your argument for these words? Or do you instead find a problem with NOTBROKEN's argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics?
 * Another redirect dodge I was hoping you could explain is when you changed "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games". These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN's argument that "Shortcuts or redirects to sections of articles ... should never be bypassed, as the section headings on the page may change over time [and] Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links" (point 4; emphasis and ellipses added). So you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions? -Thibbs (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi TJ Spyke. Just checking in again. What's happening now? Why has this conversation stalled? Have you had a chance to read what I just wrote above? I noticed that you've again resumed with the NOTBROKEN violations (swapping "United States of America" for "United States"). I don't think it's too much to ask that you completely refrain from this kind of edit until we've finished discussing our plans for how to present our argument at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. You are violating the guidelines when you make this kind of edit and you've been asked to stop over and over again. Please help me come up with some exceptions that we can present for consensus instead of just continuing to stubbornly violate the guidelines and hope that I'll go away. I won't. I really want to work with you here, but if I see it again I will bring it to AN/I. -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, I didnt do anything wrong with United States. It's the common name of the country and what everyone writes (hell, even the article uses the name) and I know that did NOT violate any rule. Frankly, saying that deleting two words so it uses the common name is wrong, is like saying you can't edit a article to fix a spelling mistake. Might as well freeze all editing. Did I somehow violate it in another article when I changed Major League Baseball to Major League Baseball ? Anyways, i've been busy. But im free now.  TJ   Spyke   15:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Repairing broken wikilinks is not a violation of NOTBROKEN, but changing from one synonymous term (like the official name of a country) to another synonymous term (like the common name for a country) for the same target article is definitely a violation of NOTBROKEN. I don't mean this to sound rude, but you have to accept the fact that your judgment on whether or not a redirect "fix" violates NOTBROKEN is clearly quite poor. I strongly urge you to avoid making those kinds of edits even if you are certain that you're in the right because you are obviously unable to differentiate between violations and non-violations. Anyway I'm glad to hear that you're free now and I'm eager to get to work on the exceptions. -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding Dragon Warrior/Quest, it is not true that Quest was common in European countries. The first game in the series even RELEASED in Europe was Dragon Warrior Monsters in 1999 (where it used "Warrior"), they didnt get another one until Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King (which was when Square Enix FIRST used the "Quest" name outside of Japan). So considering that for almost 20 years the only English name of the series was "Warrior", it makes sense for the ones released with the Warrior name to use that. As for exceptions to NOTBROKEN:


 * I think fixing spelling mistakes and capitalization (i.e. Playstation to PlayStation) are good ones that are not controversial.
 * Hmmm, maybe switching some to the most common name can be OK (though within the right context)
 * Sometimes things will never get an article. I.e. a character who appeared once on a TV show 20 years ago will probably never get an article as they are not notable enough, but they might have an entry in a article about characters from that show. Is it a problem to change a link to that section specifically?
 * If a product is released under one name in most of the world, shouldn't it be OK to write that as the name? I.e. NES/Famicom. Famicom is the Japanese name of the system, but they are still the same system. Doesn't it make sense to change the links to NES? It's especially ridiculous when some articles say a game was released on the NES and Famicom (implying they are different).

Maybe others, but these are off the top of my head.  TJ   Spyke   15:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All PAL versions of the main series are called "Dragon Quest," but that's quite beside the point. The point is that these are synonymous terms and "fixing" them to avoid the redirect violates NOTBROKEN point #6. Unless there has been a discussion leading to a consistency-based preference for one term over the other, the term used by the first European spinoff title has no significance whatsoever and the redirect should not be altered. But this brings me to the question I asked last week:
 * Is switching "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" (or "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System", etc.) something that you have been doing in the interest of inter-article consistency? Is that the core of your argument? Or do you simply reject NOTBROKEN's point #6 (i.e. the argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics)?
 * And as long as I'm re-asking questions from last week,...
 * Could you explain your thought process behind changing "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games"? These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN point #4 (described in last week's comment above). Do you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions?
 * Regarding your exceptions, I agree strongly with the first one (spelling & capitalization). That's definitely going into the final draft of our proposal. I also think that the alteration of redirect terms to reflect a consistent consensus-based terminology (if indeed such a consensus exists) is a good idea. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
 * The other three points you bring up are kind of confusing for me. I don't really think you've presented any argument for making them into exceptions. Basically your reasoning appears to boil down to "Let's make these into exceptions, because why not?" The problem with this is that NOTBROKEN is a consensus-based guideline. Nobody would take us seriously if we proposed exceptions to it without actually giving concrete reasons why the exceptions are needed. The answer to your "is it a problem?" and "shouldn't it be OK?" questions above would be answered by the editors at NOTBROKEN with "Yes it's a problem (see point #4), and no it's not OK (see point #6)." These are consensus-based views on those exact topics.
 * To create an exception we can't just ignore consensus. We have to find a reason that the consensus view is too broad and that in narrowly definable situations the general rules at NOTBROKEN should be excepted. Then we have to convince others based on solid reasoning. If there is no way to distinguish the area to which the rule applies from the area to which the exception applies then we have to propose knocking down part of the rules which will be a much more difficult task and will absolutely require ironclad arguments, not just "why not?" In addition to answering the questions I bulleted above, could you please try to think of specific reasons why we need (or how it would be helpful to have) an exception for common names, obscure aspects, and synonymous terms? -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again TJ Spyke. What is your schedule like? Are you going to have any free time in the next few weeks? I'd like to move forward with our plans regarding the development of a few more exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN. It's been nearly a month since we began talking about this, but if we're to move this forward we have to actually discuss it. I don't want to do this without your help. In fact most of my interest in getting this done is to help editors like you who seem to have problems with the current guidelines. Is this something that still interests you? When will you be available to answer questions like those I asked in the last post? Please don't just leave me hanging here. -Thibbs (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well while I'm waiting for word from you on some kind of timeframe I noticed that you'd performed a few more redirect "fixes" since I last asked you to stop and I can report that I agree most of them. But edits like this and this suggest further exceptions to the rule. From the first of those two links (relinking to the actual page name on a dab page), I think this brings up a good point - that we should add an exception for disambiguation pages per WP:PIPING. The second one (changing a link to a plural term into a link to the singular) looks like just another "fix" for reasons of your own. Can you explain that change? Was there a reason you decided to again violate NOTBROKEN in that case? For all I know there may be policy/guideline supporting that edit but if so then this suggests another good exception. -Thibbs (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and  claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place and second place  both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 16:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

When are you available to discuss the WP:NOTBROKEN exceptions?
Hi again TJ Spyke, sorry to keep bumping your talk page, but I'm concerned that my last post may have gotten lost in the shuffle due to the changes in the message alert banner and since my post is no longer at the bottom of your page. Basically I'm wondering if you intend to continue with our discussions regarding exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN and, if so, I'm wondering when you'll be available to discuss. I'm not really interested in making this into a several-month-long project. Right now we have only a single exception that we both agree on. I've proposed two other based on violative edits of yours that happen to I agree with, and I assume we'd be in agreement on those but I'd like your feedback. I've also suggested that you need to clarify a number of the suggestions you'd made earlier. Do you intend to clarify those or should we just forget about them? I'm perfectly willing to make the proposal to alter the guidelines myself, but considering that you are the one who is constantly violating NOTBROKEN, I'm still hoping that you will be motivated to help me come up with a good set of exceptions. If you don't "buy into" and take some degree of ownership of the proposal yourself then I'm gravely concerned that you'll go back to your egregious violations the moment you think nobody is watching. Please let me know when you will be available to discuss this proposal. -Thibbs (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Tomorrow or Thur should be good for me. I've just been real busy with real life lately (only having a few mins at a time to even come on Wikipedia).  TJ   Spyke   19:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

OK so as I see it we've agreed to the following exception: And based on edits you've made that violate NOTBROKEN but that I agree with I've come up with the following two exceptions that I hope you'll give me input on: Beyond these, you have also suggested exceptions for the following: And you've made recent edits reflecting personal exceptions of your to the following: I don't understand the need for any of these later sets of exceptions and so you can either explain why they are needed/helpful or we can forget about them. In the meanwhile I see that yesterday and today have been busy days for you in terms of further violations of NOTBROKEN (e.g. "Alyattes II" -> "Alyattes of Lydia"; "Battle of Narvik" -> "Battles of Narvik"; "James McDougal" -> "Jim McDougal", etc., etc.) which saddens me. Because I've asked you repeatedly to avoid making these kinds of edits while we're in discussion on this topic and because you've continued to make them in great numbers I hope you can understand my frustration with your behavior. I had really hoped to make this a quick ~1-month discussion but due to your prolonged absences and your flagrant rule violation when you are around, I've decided to drop a note at AN/I. I'm still hopeful that we can discuss this issue and make some of the proposals listed above, but because I'm not as free from now until September I feel as though we need some extra third-party attention on the situation. I hope we can get this situation resolved very quickly. -Thibbs (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Common names
 * Obscure aspects that may never get a full article
 * Synonymous terms that are used more in one country than another
 * Synonymous terms generally
 * Plurals
 * The AN/I thread is here. Feel free to add your thoughts to the thread. -Thibbs (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Well Thursday has come and gone and now Friday is almost over. I'm disappointed that you weren't able to find the time to discuss the proposals any further, and now I see that you've been given an indefinite block. As I said at the AN/I, this wasn't what I had requested but I do understand why the community saw fit to apply this remedy. I am still open to your thoughts on R2D exceptions but I can understand if you wish to end our conversation considering that you are no longer welcome to edit. Either way I do intend to make at least the three proposals listed above. I'm sorry that this whole mess ended the way it did. -Thibbs (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

HELP Keep a Social Media War off Wikipedia
There appears to be a Social Media War that has been brought here to Wikipedia, and negative info is being left on the Michelle Borth page that is not necessary. You came to me a few years ago, explaining the boundaries of Wikipedia. Well it appears that they are being broken on Michelle's page. Any input, feedback would help. This little war/argument has gone too far especially now that is being brought to other sites like Wikipedia. This particular user is claiming I have no right to remove the negative info about Michelle, regardless of whether it is true or not, until it is discussed. I feel that if me and this user attempted to discuss, it will get very heated, and you seem to really know ur way, I'd appreciate it Taker22 (talk) 10:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Continual redirect problems by User:TJ Spyke. Thank you. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 23:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're about to be blocked indefinitely. If I were you I'd be pleading my case at ANI. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Ashley Fliehr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Providence High School


 * List of acronyms: W (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to WWF


 * Takeshi's Castle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Fuji

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Question about cleanup process
Hi TJ Spyke, I noticed that you've been cleaning up numerous articles today and I was curious how you were doing it. Is it all by hand or do you use a program? Specifically I'm curious how you check the wikilinks. Are you testing each one individually or is there a tool you have that highlights all redirects? -Thibbs (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I use WPCleaner to check articles, but there are some edits that can't be made with it (like spellchecking, typos, etc.), so I then manually edit it after (essentially, I copy and paste the results from WPCleaner, then continue editing the article).  TJ   Spyke   21:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. Is WPCleaner something that you can download from a Wikimedia site/affiliate or should I just Google it if I want to find it? -Thibbs (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here you go: WPCleaner.  TJ   Spyke   21:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm sorry to say I've reverted your edit at the Derby Stallion article yet again. The links that you are "fixing" are indeed redirect links. And per WP:NOTBROKEN, redirects within an article are not supposed to be changed so that they point to the target article instead. There are a number of reasons why this is harmful to Wikipedia and they're clearly spelled out under WP:NOTBROKEN. This has become a problem in the past with users accidentally abusing the Navigation popup tool to "fix" redirects as you're doing and the result was this page. This is actually the reason I was asking above what tool you were using. I was curious to see what other tools were being subjected to this kind of abuse. The WPCleaner talk page is filled with comments regarding users mistakenly "fixing" redirects (e.g. 1, 2, 3, and many more in the archives from 2008 and earlier). The thing is... I've already explained all of this to you in the past (see e.g. 1 and 2). And I know you are aware of this issue because you have already received a final warning on the subject. So I really don't see how what you are doing could be considered good faith editing. Your editing is contrary to the guidelines and you have been repeatedly told this and warned to stop. Normally I'd suggest trying to get the guidelines changed before carrying on in this way, but in this case from your block log it's clear to me that you've consciously decided to change matters unilaterally rather than by seeking consensus. For this reason I've requested administrative action. -Thibbs (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, you did not read NOTBROKEN correctly at all. I have not been making the kinds of edits that got me into trouble before, I have been careful to only makes ones that follow the guidelines. I am sorry that you are not a good editor and dont like others making articles better, but stop vandalizing pages by reverting good edits. I am hesitant to give you a warning, but I will. Frankly, its people like you who are driving editors away from Wikipedia and preventing so many articles from being improved. Go away.  TJ   Spyke   00:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't react like this to new editors. I react this way to editors who have been editing here for 7-odd years and are among the top 400 most prolific editors and who have received a shocking number of warnings and frank blocks including an indef block. You obviously know better than to persist in these games but yet you continue. AGF only extends so far. You clearly have no regard for community guidelines founded on consensus and are only interested in your own editorial decisions. I'm sorry that you decided to take this route. It was a very poor decision on your part. -Thibbs (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, to Derby Stallion (series) is full of unhelpful changes as per WP:NOTBROKEN.  Amalthea  09:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, I see no unhelpful edits. I will not pretend 100% of my edits have been helpful, but ask any average editor and that change is nothing but helpful. And frankly, you shouldnt drive away good editors since fewer and fewer people are editing Wikipedia now. I also notice that I only get hounded when I mass edit articles, I dont get harassed when I only edit a few articles a day.  TJ   Spyke   20:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "It is likewise unhelpful to edit visible links for no reason other than to avoid redirects." Amalthea  22:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A great majority of your NOTBROKEN violations are harmful actually. Try actually reading the guideline. You might be surprised to discover that there are at least six explicitly listed reasons not to change (bypass) redirects. One obvious one is that you are whitewashing usage stats - an activity that is at best completely pointless. But more often it's not completely harmless. It's directly harmful because it obscures the need for new articles on topics that aren't covered and it hides more appropriate and thus needed page-moves.
 * How on earth could these violations be "nothing but helpful"? I can't think of a single way that they help. Correcting incorrect titles or misspelled words or redirect like that is one thing, but how does it help anybody if you change horse breaking to horse training (to take a random example from the Derby Stallion article)? It hides the fact that there is no article on horse breaking - a clearly distinct concept from horse training and it reduces the likelihood that anyone will write an article on horse breaking. In what world does that help in any way whatsoever? At very best it's a completely pointless time-wasting activity. And it's one that you have been warned over and over and over again to stop. Does the consensus of your fellow editor on this issue really matter so little to you that you are unwilling to put an end to this distinctly non-helpful activity? Does the possibility that you may get blocked for a 24th (!!!) time mean nothing to you? I hope I'm not overreacting here, but I find your conduct in this one trivial editorial area to be truly incomprehensible. -Thibbs (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been careful to avoid those types of link changes. How is changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3" doing any harm? There is never gonna be a "Playstation 3" article, ever. And in that Derby Stallion article, changing "PlayStation" to "PlayStation (console)" IS directly helpful and needed because the latter refers to the game system called PlayStation and the former refers to the general product line. Or changing links to "Famicom" to be "Nintendo Entertainment System|Famicom", there will never be a separate Famicom article because it's just the Japanese name of the NES. Sometimes I make mistakes (like with the horse breaking one), but I see it as vandalism when editors revert the whole edit instead of just specific link changes they see as bad.  TJ   Spyke   15:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Look I recognize that apart from this one issue (and I guess the 3RR stuff from your past that I think you've mostly stopped now) you are a good editor. And I also recognize that you're human and that you may make mistakes. But seeing as how you've made so many many mistakes in this one particular area I would seriously recommend avoiding it altogether. Just skimming the cleanups you've performed since you were last unblocked, it's apparent that the large majority of the redirect "fixes" you performed were potentially harmful. And a tiny minority of them are helpful in any way.
 * Is there a reason you feel compelled to change the redirects? I assume it's not just to boost your edit count, right? But is it just because it looks ugly on WPCleaner? Or do you really think that this is somehow helpful? If you do think it is helpful then have you considered making the case to change the guidelines at WP:NOTBROKEN? Because there are only 2 listed exceptions to that guideline currently. I wouldn't say that this is a complete list of all good exceptions, though. Your example of changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3", for instance, seems to me to be correcting a misspelling (or really a mis-capitalization). And I think that this is helpful and that it should be listed as an exception to WP:NOTBROKEN.
 * Why don't you and I try to come up with some exceptions that we could propose to the community together to improve the guidelines so that you're not constantly violating them? If you could come up with a reason why changing "video arcade" to "amusement arcade" or how changing "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System" or how changing "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" helps in any way then you could certainly make that suggestion as well. This would be a much much better way of approaching the problem than just ignoring everyone's warnings and getting banned over and over, don't you think? I'd be willing to help draft some proposed changes if you're willing to engage with me and explain why you feel compelled to violate this guideline. -Thibbs (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me (and withe something like the Dragon Quest, it's because the series name in English was Dragon Warrior before the the Dragon Quest VIII. Amusement arcade and video arcade are essentially interchangeable terms like "pop" and "soda". As for Famicom, aren't we supposed to use English names of products if that is the best known name? Famicom is just the Japanese name of the NES, so I would think other WP policies supported changing them to NES). I've never bothered trying to have NOTBROKEN changed because I know from experience how hard it can be to have policies on Wikipedia changed. Maybe later today or something we can start working on this together to propose changes that seem like common sense to most people.  TJ   Spyke   16:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm encouraged by your attitude. I think we should discuss this thoroughly between us here before proposing anything so that we're clear in our arguments. It's OK if we disagree too, since we can propose changes individually to be accepted piecemeal rather than only as a single package. Anyway here are my thoughts on what you've said just above:
 * Like the term "video arcade", the other two are also examples of synonymous terms: Dragon Warrior is the North American term whereas the English term is actually Dragon Quest (the same is true for all European countries and Japan actually); Famicom is the original Japanese name for the NES. According to NOTBROKEN (point 6), the use of a synonymous redirect term provides useful information relating to usage of the term which can be considered as evidence for renaming the article. By systematically changing these links to the current non-redirect title, you are manipulating the usage statistics. As an example: it might be that the term "Dragon Quest" is better known than "Dragon Warrior", but because you'd have changed all of the "Dragon Quest" redirects into "Dragon Warrior," you would have eradicated this information and we would get a false impression that "Dragon Warrior" was the most commonly used term when in reality it was only the most commonly used because the statistics had been manipulated. If you don't like that example, try imagining the reverse. Imagine someone who called the game "Dragon Quest" trying to make the case that the article should be renamed. So first he would change all the links to redirects and then point to the incoming links as evidence that everyone calls it Dragon Quest. You can see how that would be a problem, right? I think what NOTBROKEN is saying is that it's safest if we rely on the real usage statistics by refraining from changing synonymous terms. They are synonyms, after all, so the meaning is identical, right?
 * But I think you might have a point if your central concern was consistency. There have been large discussions in the past regarding whether or not Wikipedia should preferentially use the term "Sega Genesis" or "Master Drive" for example. I'm sure the same could exist for terms from popular consumer products like "Famicom/NES" or "Dragon Quest/Warrior" as well. If there has been a community discussion where one term was decided as the preferred term then I think you could make the case that perhaps it would be a good idea to use a single term in the interest of consistency. Does that sound like it might be the core of your argument for these words? Or do you instead find a problem with NOTBROKEN's argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics?
 * Another redirect dodge I was hoping you could explain is when you changed "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games". These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN's argument that "Shortcuts or redirects to sections of articles ... should never be bypassed, as the section headings on the page may change over time [and] Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links" (point 4; emphasis and ellipses added). So you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions? -Thibbs (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi TJ Spyke. Just checking in again. What's happening now? Why has this conversation stalled? Have you had a chance to read what I just wrote above? I noticed that you've again resumed with the NOTBROKEN violations (swapping "United States of America" for "United States"). I don't think it's too much to ask that you completely refrain from this kind of edit until we've finished discussing our plans for how to present our argument at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. You are violating the guidelines when you make this kind of edit and you've been asked to stop over and over again. Please help me come up with some exceptions that we can present for consensus instead of just continuing to stubbornly violate the guidelines and hope that I'll go away. I won't. I really want to work with you here, but if I see it again I will bring it to AN/I. -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, I didnt do anything wrong with United States. It's the common name of the country and what everyone writes (hell, even the article uses the name) and I know that did NOT violate any rule. Frankly, saying that deleting two words so it uses the common name is wrong, is like saying you can't edit a article to fix a spelling mistake. Might as well freeze all editing. Did I somehow violate it in another article when I changed Major League Baseball to Major League Baseball ? Anyways, i've been busy. But im free now.  TJ   Spyke   15:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Repairing broken wikilinks is not a violation of NOTBROKEN, but changing from one synonymous term (like the official name of a country) to another synonymous term (like the common name for a country) for the same target article is definitely a violation of NOTBROKEN. I don't mean this to sound rude, but you have to accept the fact that your judgment on whether or not a redirect "fix" violates NOTBROKEN is clearly quite poor. I strongly urge you to avoid making those kinds of edits even if you are certain that you're in the right because you are obviously unable to differentiate between violations and non-violations. Anyway I'm glad to hear that you're free now and I'm eager to get to work on the exceptions. -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding Dragon Warrior/Quest, it is not true that Quest was common in European countries. The first game in the series even RELEASED in Europe was Dragon Warrior Monsters in 1999 (where it used "Warrior"), they didnt get another one until Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King (which was when Square Enix FIRST used the "Quest" name outside of Japan). So considering that for almost 20 years the only English name of the series was "Warrior", it makes sense for the ones released with the Warrior name to use that. As for exceptions to NOTBROKEN:


 * I think fixing spelling mistakes and capitalization (i.e. Playstation to PlayStation) are good ones that are not controversial.
 * Hmmm, maybe switching some to the most common name can be OK (though within the right context)
 * Sometimes things will never get an article. I.e. a character who appeared once on a TV show 20 years ago will probably never get an article as they are not notable enough, but they might have an entry in a article about characters from that show. Is it a problem to change a link to that section specifically?
 * If a product is released under one name in most of the world, shouldn't it be OK to write that as the name? I.e. NES/Famicom. Famicom is the Japanese name of the system, but they are still the same system. Doesn't it make sense to change the links to NES? It's especially ridiculous when some articles say a game was released on the NES and Famicom (implying they are different).

Maybe others, but these are off the top of my head.  TJ   Spyke   15:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All PAL versions of the main series are called "Dragon Quest," but that's quite beside the point. The point is that these are synonymous terms and "fixing" them to avoid the redirect violates NOTBROKEN point #6. Unless there has been a discussion leading to a consistency-based preference for one term over the other, the term used by the first European spinoff title has no significance whatsoever and the redirect should not be altered. But this brings me to the question I asked last week:
 * Is switching "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" (or "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System", etc.) something that you have been doing in the interest of inter-article consistency? Is that the core of your argument? Or do you simply reject NOTBROKEN's point #6 (i.e. the argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics)?
 * And as long as I'm re-asking questions from last week,...
 * Could you explain your thought process behind changing "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games"? These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN point #4 (described in last week's comment above). Do you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions?
 * Regarding your exceptions, I agree strongly with the first one (spelling & capitalization). That's definitely going into the final draft of our proposal. I also think that the alteration of redirect terms to reflect a consistent consensus-based terminology (if indeed such a consensus exists) is a good idea. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
 * The other three points you bring up are kind of confusing for me. I don't really think you've presented any argument for making them into exceptions. Basically your reasoning appears to boil down to "Let's make these into exceptions, because why not?" The problem with this is that NOTBROKEN is a consensus-based guideline. Nobody would take us seriously if we proposed exceptions to it without actually giving concrete reasons why the exceptions are needed. The answer to your "is it a problem?" and "shouldn't it be OK?" questions above would be answered by the editors at NOTBROKEN with "Yes it's a problem (see point #4), and no it's not OK (see point #6)." These are consensus-based views on those exact topics.
 * To create an exception we can't just ignore consensus. We have to find a reason that the consensus view is too broad and that in narrowly definable situations the general rules at NOTBROKEN should be excepted. Then we have to convince others based on solid reasoning. If there is no way to distinguish the area to which the rule applies from the area to which the exception applies then we have to propose knocking down part of the rules which will be a much more difficult task and will absolutely require ironclad arguments, not just "why not?" In addition to answering the questions I bulleted above, could you please try to think of specific reasons why we need (or how it would be helpful to have) an exception for common names, obscure aspects, and synonymous terms? -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again TJ Spyke. What is your schedule like? Are you going to have any free time in the next few weeks? I'd like to move forward with our plans regarding the development of a few more exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN. It's been nearly a month since we began talking about this, but if we're to move this forward we have to actually discuss it. I don't want to do this without your help. In fact most of my interest in getting this done is to help editors like you who seem to have problems with the current guidelines. Is this something that still interests you? When will you be available to answer questions like those I asked in the last post? Please don't just leave me hanging here. -Thibbs (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well while I'm waiting for word from you on some kind of timeframe I noticed that you'd performed a few more redirect "fixes" since I last asked you to stop and I can report that I agree most of them. But edits like this and this suggest further exceptions to the rule. From the first of those two links (relinking to the actual page name on a dab page), I think this brings up a good point - that we should add an exception for disambiguation pages per WP:PIPING. The second one (changing a link to a plural term into a link to the singular) looks like just another "fix" for reasons of your own. Can you explain that change? Was there a reason you decided to again violate NOTBROKEN in that case? For all I know there may be policy/guideline supporting that edit but if so then this suggests another good exception. -Thibbs (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and  claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place and second place  both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 16:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

When are you available to discuss the WP:NOTBROKEN exceptions?
Hi again TJ Spyke, sorry to keep bumping your talk page, but I'm concerned that my last post may have gotten lost in the shuffle due to the changes in the message alert banner and since my post is no longer at the bottom of your page. Basically I'm wondering if you intend to continue with our discussions regarding exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN and, if so, I'm wondering when you'll be available to discuss. I'm not really interested in making this into a several-month-long project. Right now we have only a single exception that we both agree on. I've proposed two other based on violative edits of yours that happen to I agree with, and I assume we'd be in agreement on those but I'd like your feedback. I've also suggested that you need to clarify a number of the suggestions you'd made earlier. Do you intend to clarify those or should we just forget about them? I'm perfectly willing to make the proposal to alter the guidelines myself, but considering that you are the one who is constantly violating NOTBROKEN, I'm still hoping that you will be motivated to help me come up with a good set of exceptions. If you don't "buy into" and take some degree of ownership of the proposal yourself then I'm gravely concerned that you'll go back to your egregious violations the moment you think nobody is watching. Please let me know when you will be available to discuss this proposal. -Thibbs (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Tomorrow or Thur should be good for me. I've just been real busy with real life lately (only having a few mins at a time to even come on Wikipedia).  TJ   Spyke   19:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

OK so as I see it we've agreed to the following exception: And based on edits you've made that violate NOTBROKEN but that I agree with I've come up with the following two exceptions that I hope you'll give me input on: Beyond these, you have also suggested exceptions for the following: And you've made recent edits reflecting personal exceptions of your to the following: I don't understand the need for any of these later sets of exceptions and so you can either explain why they are needed/helpful or we can forget about them. In the meanwhile I see that yesterday and today have been busy days for you in terms of further violations of NOTBROKEN (e.g. "Alyattes II" -> "Alyattes of Lydia"; "Battle of Narvik" -> "Battles of Narvik"; "James McDougal" -> "Jim McDougal", etc., etc.) which saddens me. Because I've asked you repeatedly to avoid making these kinds of edits while we're in discussion on this topic and because you've continued to make them in great numbers I hope you can understand my frustration with your behavior. I had really hoped to make this a quick ~1-month discussion but due to your prolonged absences and your flagrant rule violation when you are around, I've decided to drop a note at AN/I. I'm still hopeful that we can discuss this issue and make some of the proposals listed above, but because I'm not as free from now until September I feel as though we need some extra third-party attention on the situation. I hope we can get this situation resolved very quickly. -Thibbs (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Common names
 * Obscure aspects that may never get a full article
 * Synonymous terms that are used more in one country than another
 * Synonymous terms generally
 * Plurals
 * The AN/I thread is here. Feel free to add your thoughts to the thread. -Thibbs (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Well Thursday has come and gone and now Friday is almost over. I'm disappointed that you weren't able to find the time to discuss the proposals any further, and now I see that you've been given an indefinite block. As I said at the AN/I, this wasn't what I had requested but I do understand why the community saw fit to apply this remedy. I am still open to your thoughts on R2D exceptions but I can understand if you wish to end our conversation considering that you are no longer welcome to edit. Either way I do intend to make at least the three proposals listed above. I'm sorry that this whole mess ended the way it did. -Thibbs (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

HELP Keep a Social Media War off Wikipedia
There appears to be a Social Media War that has been brought here to Wikipedia, and negative info is being left on the Michelle Borth page that is not necessary. You came to me a few years ago, explaining the boundaries of Wikipedia. Well it appears that they are being broken on Michelle's page. Any input, feedback would help. This little war/argument has gone too far especially now that is being brought to other sites like Wikipedia. This particular user is claiming I have no right to remove the negative info about Michelle, regardless of whether it is true or not, until it is discussed. I feel that if me and this user attempted to discuss, it will get very heated, and you seem to really know ur way, I'd appreciate it Taker22 (talk) 10:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Continual redirect problems by User:TJ Spyke. Thank you. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 23:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're about to be blocked indefinitely. If I were you I'd be pleading my case at ANI. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Ashley Fliehr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Providence High School


 * List of acronyms: W (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to WWF


 * Takeshi's Castle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Fuji

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Question about cleanup process
Hi TJ Spyke, I noticed that you've been cleaning up numerous articles today and I was curious how you were doing it. Is it all by hand or do you use a program? Specifically I'm curious how you check the wikilinks. Are you testing each one individually or is there a tool you have that highlights all redirects? -Thibbs (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I use WPCleaner to check articles, but there are some edits that can't be made with it (like spellchecking, typos, etc.), so I then manually edit it after (essentially, I copy and paste the results from WPCleaner, then continue editing the article).  TJ   Spyke   21:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. Is WPCleaner something that you can download from a Wikimedia site/affiliate or should I just Google it if I want to find it? -Thibbs (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here you go: WPCleaner.  TJ   Spyke   21:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm sorry to say I've reverted your edit at the Derby Stallion article yet again. The links that you are "fixing" are indeed redirect links. And per WP:NOTBROKEN, redirects within an article are not supposed to be changed so that they point to the target article instead. There are a number of reasons why this is harmful to Wikipedia and they're clearly spelled out under WP:NOTBROKEN. This has become a problem in the past with users accidentally abusing the Navigation popup tool to "fix" redirects as you're doing and the result was this page. This is actually the reason I was asking above what tool you were using. I was curious to see what other tools were being subjected to this kind of abuse. The WPCleaner talk page is filled with comments regarding users mistakenly "fixing" redirects (e.g. 1, 2, 3, and many more in the archives from 2008 and earlier). The thing is... I've already explained all of this to you in the past (see e.g. 1 and 2). And I know you are aware of this issue because you have already received a final warning on the subject. So I really don't see how what you are doing could be considered good faith editing. Your editing is contrary to the guidelines and you have been repeatedly told this and warned to stop. Normally I'd suggest trying to get the guidelines changed before carrying on in this way, but in this case from your block log it's clear to me that you've consciously decided to change matters unilaterally rather than by seeking consensus. For this reason I've requested administrative action. -Thibbs (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, you did not read NOTBROKEN correctly at all. I have not been making the kinds of edits that got me into trouble before, I have been careful to only makes ones that follow the guidelines. I am sorry that you are not a good editor and dont like others making articles better, but stop vandalizing pages by reverting good edits. I am hesitant to give you a warning, but I will. Frankly, its people like you who are driving editors away from Wikipedia and preventing so many articles from being improved. Go away.  TJ   Spyke   00:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't react like this to new editors. I react this way to editors who have been editing here for 7-odd years and are among the top 400 most prolific editors and who have received a shocking number of warnings and frank blocks including an indef block. You obviously know better than to persist in these games but yet you continue. AGF only extends so far. You clearly have no regard for community guidelines founded on consensus and are only interested in your own editorial decisions. I'm sorry that you decided to take this route. It was a very poor decision on your part. -Thibbs (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, to Derby Stallion (series) is full of unhelpful changes as per WP:NOTBROKEN.  Amalthea  09:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, I see no unhelpful edits. I will not pretend 100% of my edits have been helpful, but ask any average editor and that change is nothing but helpful. And frankly, you shouldnt drive away good editors since fewer and fewer people are editing Wikipedia now. I also notice that I only get hounded when I mass edit articles, I dont get harassed when I only edit a few articles a day.  TJ   Spyke   20:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "It is likewise unhelpful to edit visible links for no reason other than to avoid redirects." Amalthea  22:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A great majority of your NOTBROKEN violations are harmful actually. Try actually reading the guideline. You might be surprised to discover that there are at least six explicitly listed reasons not to change (bypass) redirects. One obvious one is that you are whitewashing usage stats - an activity that is at best completely pointless. But more often it's not completely harmless. It's directly harmful because it obscures the need for new articles on topics that aren't covered and it hides more appropriate and thus needed page-moves.
 * How on earth could these violations be "nothing but helpful"? I can't think of a single way that they help. Correcting incorrect titles or misspelled words or redirect like that is one thing, but how does it help anybody if you change horse breaking to horse training (to take a random example from the Derby Stallion article)? It hides the fact that there is no article on horse breaking - a clearly distinct concept from horse training and it reduces the likelihood that anyone will write an article on horse breaking. In what world does that help in any way whatsoever? At very best it's a completely pointless time-wasting activity. And it's one that you have been warned over and over and over again to stop. Does the consensus of your fellow editor on this issue really matter so little to you that you are unwilling to put an end to this distinctly non-helpful activity? Does the possibility that you may get blocked for a 24th (!!!) time mean nothing to you? I hope I'm not overreacting here, but I find your conduct in this one trivial editorial area to be truly incomprehensible. -Thibbs (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been careful to avoid those types of link changes. How is changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3" doing any harm? There is never gonna be a "Playstation 3" article, ever. And in that Derby Stallion article, changing "PlayStation" to "PlayStation (console)" IS directly helpful and needed because the latter refers to the game system called PlayStation and the former refers to the general product line. Or changing links to "Famicom" to be "Nintendo Entertainment System|Famicom", there will never be a separate Famicom article because it's just the Japanese name of the NES. Sometimes I make mistakes (like with the horse breaking one), but I see it as vandalism when editors revert the whole edit instead of just specific link changes they see as bad.  TJ   Spyke   15:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Look I recognize that apart from this one issue (and I guess the 3RR stuff from your past that I think you've mostly stopped now) you are a good editor. And I also recognize that you're human and that you may make mistakes. But seeing as how you've made so many many mistakes in this one particular area I would seriously recommend avoiding it altogether. Just skimming the cleanups you've performed since you were last unblocked, it's apparent that the large majority of the redirect "fixes" you performed were potentially harmful. And a tiny minority of them are helpful in any way.
 * Is there a reason you feel compelled to change the redirects? I assume it's not just to boost your edit count, right? But is it just because it looks ugly on WPCleaner? Or do you really think that this is somehow helpful? If you do think it is helpful then have you considered making the case to change the guidelines at WP:NOTBROKEN? Because there are only 2 listed exceptions to that guideline currently. I wouldn't say that this is a complete list of all good exceptions, though. Your example of changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3", for instance, seems to me to be correcting a misspelling (or really a mis-capitalization). And I think that this is helpful and that it should be listed as an exception to WP:NOTBROKEN.
 * Why don't you and I try to come up with some exceptions that we could propose to the community together to improve the guidelines so that you're not constantly violating them? If you could come up with a reason why changing "video arcade" to "amusement arcade" or how changing "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System" or how changing "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" helps in any way then you could certainly make that suggestion as well. This would be a much much better way of approaching the problem than just ignoring everyone's warnings and getting banned over and over, don't you think? I'd be willing to help draft some proposed changes if you're willing to engage with me and explain why you feel compelled to violate this guideline. -Thibbs (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me (and withe something like the Dragon Quest, it's because the series name in English was Dragon Warrior before the the Dragon Quest VIII. Amusement arcade and video arcade are essentially interchangeable terms like "pop" and "soda". As for Famicom, aren't we supposed to use English names of products if that is the best known name? Famicom is just the Japanese name of the NES, so I would think other WP policies supported changing them to NES). I've never bothered trying to have NOTBROKEN changed because I know from experience how hard it can be to have policies on Wikipedia changed. Maybe later today or something we can start working on this together to propose changes that seem like common sense to most people.  TJ   Spyke   16:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm encouraged by your attitude. I think we should discuss this thoroughly between us here before proposing anything so that we're clear in our arguments. It's OK if we disagree too, since we can propose changes individually to be accepted piecemeal rather than only as a single package. Anyway here are my thoughts on what you've said just above:
 * Like the term "video arcade", the other two are also examples of synonymous terms: Dragon Warrior is the North American term whereas the English term is actually Dragon Quest (the same is true for all European countries and Japan actually); Famicom is the original Japanese name for the NES. According to NOTBROKEN (point 6), the use of a synonymous redirect term provides useful information relating to usage of the term which can be considered as evidence for renaming the article. By systematically changing these links to the current non-redirect title, you are manipulating the usage statistics. As an example: it might be that the term "Dragon Quest" is better known than "Dragon Warrior", but because you'd have changed all of the "Dragon Quest" redirects into "Dragon Warrior," you would have eradicated this information and we would get a false impression that "Dragon Warrior" was the most commonly used term when in reality it was only the most commonly used because the statistics had been manipulated. If you don't like that example, try imagining the reverse. Imagine someone who called the game "Dragon Quest" trying to make the case that the article should be renamed. So first he would change all the links to redirects and then point to the incoming links as evidence that everyone calls it Dragon Quest. You can see how that would be a problem, right? I think what NOTBROKEN is saying is that it's safest if we rely on the real usage statistics by refraining from changing synonymous terms. They are synonyms, after all, so the meaning is identical, right?
 * But I think you might have a point if your central concern was consistency. There have been large discussions in the past regarding whether or not Wikipedia should preferentially use the term "Sega Genesis" or "Master Drive" for example. I'm sure the same could exist for terms from popular consumer products like "Famicom/NES" or "Dragon Quest/Warrior" as well. If there has been a community discussion where one term was decided as the preferred term then I think you could make the case that perhaps it would be a good idea to use a single term in the interest of consistency. Does that sound like it might be the core of your argument for these words? Or do you instead find a problem with NOTBROKEN's argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics?
 * Another redirect dodge I was hoping you could explain is when you changed "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games". These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN's argument that "Shortcuts or redirects to sections of articles ... should never be bypassed, as the section headings on the page may change over time [and] Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links" (point 4; emphasis and ellipses added). So you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions? -Thibbs (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi TJ Spyke. Just checking in again. What's happening now? Why has this conversation stalled? Have you had a chance to read what I just wrote above? I noticed that you've again resumed with the NOTBROKEN violations (swapping "United States of America" for "United States"). I don't think it's too much to ask that you completely refrain from this kind of edit until we've finished discussing our plans for how to present our argument at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. You are violating the guidelines when you make this kind of edit and you've been asked to stop over and over again. Please help me come up with some exceptions that we can present for consensus instead of just continuing to stubbornly violate the guidelines and hope that I'll go away. I won't. I really want to work with you here, but if I see it again I will bring it to AN/I. -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, I didnt do anything wrong with United States. It's the common name of the country and what everyone writes (hell, even the article uses the name) and I know that did NOT violate any rule. Frankly, saying that deleting two words so it uses the common name is wrong, is like saying you can't edit a article to fix a spelling mistake. Might as well freeze all editing. Did I somehow violate it in another article when I changed Major League Baseball to Major League Baseball ? Anyways, i've been busy. But im free now.  TJ   Spyke   15:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Repairing broken wikilinks is not a violation of NOTBROKEN, but changing from one synonymous term (like the official name of a country) to another synonymous term (like the common name for a country) for the same target article is definitely a violation of NOTBROKEN. I don't mean this to sound rude, but you have to accept the fact that your judgment on whether or not a redirect "fix" violates NOTBROKEN is clearly quite poor. I strongly urge you to avoid making those kinds of edits even if you are certain that you're in the right because you are obviously unable to differentiate between violations and non-violations. Anyway I'm glad to hear that you're free now and I'm eager to get to work on the exceptions. -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding Dragon Warrior/Quest, it is not true that Quest was common in European countries. The first game in the series even RELEASED in Europe was Dragon Warrior Monsters in 1999 (where it used "Warrior"), they didnt get another one until Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King (which was when Square Enix FIRST used the "Quest" name outside of Japan). So considering that for almost 20 years the only English name of the series was "Warrior", it makes sense for the ones released with the Warrior name to use that. As for exceptions to NOTBROKEN:


 * I think fixing spelling mistakes and capitalization (i.e. Playstation to PlayStation) are good ones that are not controversial.
 * Hmmm, maybe switching some to the most common name can be OK (though within the right context)
 * Sometimes things will never get an article. I.e. a character who appeared once on a TV show 20 years ago will probably never get an article as they are not notable enough, but they might have an entry in a article about characters from that show. Is it a problem to change a link to that section specifically?
 * If a product is released under one name in most of the world, shouldn't it be OK to write that as the name? I.e. NES/Famicom. Famicom is the Japanese name of the system, but they are still the same system. Doesn't it make sense to change the links to NES? It's especially ridiculous when some articles say a game was released on the NES and Famicom (implying they are different).

Maybe others, but these are off the top of my head.  TJ   Spyke   15:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All PAL versions of the main series are called "Dragon Quest," but that's quite beside the point. The point is that these are synonymous terms and "fixing" them to avoid the redirect violates NOTBROKEN point #6. Unless there has been a discussion leading to a consistency-based preference for one term over the other, the term used by the first European spinoff title has no significance whatsoever and the redirect should not be altered. But this brings me to the question I asked last week:
 * Is switching "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" (or "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System", etc.) something that you have been doing in the interest of inter-article consistency? Is that the core of your argument? Or do you simply reject NOTBROKEN's point #6 (i.e. the argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics)?
 * And as long as I'm re-asking questions from last week,...
 * Could you explain your thought process behind changing "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games"? These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN point #4 (described in last week's comment above). Do you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions?
 * Regarding your exceptions, I agree strongly with the first one (spelling & capitalization). That's definitely going into the final draft of our proposal. I also think that the alteration of redirect terms to reflect a consistent consensus-based terminology (if indeed such a consensus exists) is a good idea. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
 * The other three points you bring up are kind of confusing for me. I don't really think you've presented any argument for making them into exceptions. Basically your reasoning appears to boil down to "Let's make these into exceptions, because why not?" The problem with this is that NOTBROKEN is a consensus-based guideline. Nobody would take us seriously if we proposed exceptions to it without actually giving concrete reasons why the exceptions are needed. The answer to your "is it a problem?" and "shouldn't it be OK?" questions above would be answered by the editors at NOTBROKEN with "Yes it's a problem (see point #4), and no it's not OK (see point #6)." These are consensus-based views on those exact topics.
 * To create an exception we can't just ignore consensus. We have to find a reason that the consensus view is too broad and that in narrowly definable situations the general rules at NOTBROKEN should be excepted. Then we have to convince others based on solid reasoning. If there is no way to distinguish the area to which the rule applies from the area to which the exception applies then we have to propose knocking down part of the rules which will be a much more difficult task and will absolutely require ironclad arguments, not just "why not?" In addition to answering the questions I bulleted above, could you please try to think of specific reasons why we need (or how it would be helpful to have) an exception for common names, obscure aspects, and synonymous terms? -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again TJ Spyke. What is your schedule like? Are you going to have any free time in the next few weeks? I'd like to move forward with our plans regarding the development of a few more exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN. It's been nearly a month since we began talking about this, but if we're to move this forward we have to actually discuss it. I don't want to do this without your help. In fact most of my interest in getting this done is to help editors like you who seem to have problems with the current guidelines. Is this something that still interests you? When will you be available to answer questions like those I asked in the last post? Please don't just leave me hanging here. -Thibbs (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well while I'm waiting for word from you on some kind of timeframe I noticed that you'd performed a few more redirect "fixes" since I last asked you to stop and I can report that I agree most of them. But edits like this and this suggest further exceptions to the rule. From the first of those two links (relinking to the actual page name on a dab page), I think this brings up a good point - that we should add an exception for disambiguation pages per WP:PIPING. The second one (changing a link to a plural term into a link to the singular) looks like just another "fix" for reasons of your own. Can you explain that change? Was there a reason you decided to again violate NOTBROKEN in that case? For all I know there may be policy/guideline supporting that edit but if so then this suggests another good exception. -Thibbs (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and  claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place and second place  both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 16:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

When are you available to discuss the WP:NOTBROKEN exceptions?
Hi again TJ Spyke, sorry to keep bumping your talk page, but I'm concerned that my last post may have gotten lost in the shuffle due to the changes in the message alert banner and since my post is no longer at the bottom of your page. Basically I'm wondering if you intend to continue with our discussions regarding exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN and, if so, I'm wondering when you'll be available to discuss. I'm not really interested in making this into a several-month-long project. Right now we have only a single exception that we both agree on. I've proposed two other based on violative edits of yours that happen to I agree with, and I assume we'd be in agreement on those but I'd like your feedback. I've also suggested that you need to clarify a number of the suggestions you'd made earlier. Do you intend to clarify those or should we just forget about them? I'm perfectly willing to make the proposal to alter the guidelines myself, but considering that you are the one who is constantly violating NOTBROKEN, I'm still hoping that you will be motivated to help me come up with a good set of exceptions. If you don't "buy into" and take some degree of ownership of the proposal yourself then I'm gravely concerned that you'll go back to your egregious violations the moment you think nobody is watching. Please let me know when you will be available to discuss this proposal. -Thibbs (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Tomorrow or Thur should be good for me. I've just been real busy with real life lately (only having a few mins at a time to even come on Wikipedia).  TJ   Spyke   19:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

OK so as I see it we've agreed to the following exception: And based on edits you've made that violate NOTBROKEN but that I agree with I've come up with the following two exceptions that I hope you'll give me input on: Beyond these, you have also suggested exceptions for the following: And you've made recent edits reflecting personal exceptions of your to the following: I don't understand the need for any of these later sets of exceptions and so you can either explain why they are needed/helpful or we can forget about them. In the meanwhile I see that yesterday and today have been busy days for you in terms of further violations of NOTBROKEN (e.g. "Alyattes II" -> "Alyattes of Lydia"; "Battle of Narvik" -> "Battles of Narvik"; "James McDougal" -> "Jim McDougal", etc., etc.) which saddens me. Because I've asked you repeatedly to avoid making these kinds of edits while we're in discussion on this topic and because you've continued to make them in great numbers I hope you can understand my frustration with your behavior. I had really hoped to make this a quick ~1-month discussion but due to your prolonged absences and your flagrant rule violation when you are around, I've decided to drop a note at AN/I. I'm still hopeful that we can discuss this issue and make some of the proposals listed above, but because I'm not as free from now until September I feel as though we need some extra third-party attention on the situation. I hope we can get this situation resolved very quickly. -Thibbs (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Common names
 * Obscure aspects that may never get a full article
 * Synonymous terms that are used more in one country than another
 * Synonymous terms generally
 * Plurals
 * The AN/I thread is here. Feel free to add your thoughts to the thread. -Thibbs (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Well Thursday has come and gone and now Friday is almost over. I'm disappointed that you weren't able to find the time to discuss the proposals any further, and now I see that you've been given an indefinite block. As I said at the AN/I, this wasn't what I had requested but I do understand why the community saw fit to apply this remedy. I am still open to your thoughts on R2D exceptions but I can understand if you wish to end our conversation considering that you are no longer welcome to edit. Either way I do intend to make at least the three proposals listed above. I'm sorry that this whole mess ended the way it did. -Thibbs (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

HELP Keep a Social Media War off Wikipedia
There appears to be a Social Media War that has been brought here to Wikipedia, and negative info is being left on the Michelle Borth page that is not necessary. You came to me a few years ago, explaining the boundaries of Wikipedia. Well it appears that they are being broken on Michelle's page. Any input, feedback would help. This little war/argument has gone too far especially now that is being brought to other sites like Wikipedia. This particular user is claiming I have no right to remove the negative info about Michelle, regardless of whether it is true or not, until it is discussed. I feel that if me and this user attempted to discuss, it will get very heated, and you seem to really know ur way, I'd appreciate it Taker22 (talk) 10:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Continual redirect problems by User:TJ Spyke. Thank you. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 23:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're about to be blocked indefinitely. If I were you I'd be pleading my case at ANI. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Ashley Fliehr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Providence High School


 * List of acronyms: W (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to WWF


 * Takeshi's Castle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Fuji

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Question about cleanup process
Hi TJ Spyke, I noticed that you've been cleaning up numerous articles today and I was curious how you were doing it. Is it all by hand or do you use a program? Specifically I'm curious how you check the wikilinks. Are you testing each one individually or is there a tool you have that highlights all redirects? -Thibbs (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I use WPCleaner to check articles, but there are some edits that can't be made with it (like spellchecking, typos, etc.), so I then manually edit it after (essentially, I copy and paste the results from WPCleaner, then continue editing the article).  TJ   Spyke   21:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. Is WPCleaner something that you can download from a Wikimedia site/affiliate or should I just Google it if I want to find it? -Thibbs (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here you go: WPCleaner.  TJ   Spyke   21:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm sorry to say I've reverted your edit at the Derby Stallion article yet again. The links that you are "fixing" are indeed redirect links. And per WP:NOTBROKEN, redirects within an article are not supposed to be changed so that they point to the target article instead. There are a number of reasons why this is harmful to Wikipedia and they're clearly spelled out under WP:NOTBROKEN. This has become a problem in the past with users accidentally abusing the Navigation popup tool to "fix" redirects as you're doing and the result was this page. This is actually the reason I was asking above what tool you were using. I was curious to see what other tools were being subjected to this kind of abuse. The WPCleaner talk page is filled with comments regarding users mistakenly "fixing" redirects (e.g. 1, 2, 3, and many more in the archives from 2008 and earlier). The thing is... I've already explained all of this to you in the past (see e.g. 1 and 2). And I know you are aware of this issue because you have already received a final warning on the subject. So I really don't see how what you are doing could be considered good faith editing. Your editing is contrary to the guidelines and you have been repeatedly told this and warned to stop. Normally I'd suggest trying to get the guidelines changed before carrying on in this way, but in this case from your block log it's clear to me that you've consciously decided to change matters unilaterally rather than by seeking consensus. For this reason I've requested administrative action. -Thibbs (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, you did not read NOTBROKEN correctly at all. I have not been making the kinds of edits that got me into trouble before, I have been careful to only makes ones that follow the guidelines. I am sorry that you are not a good editor and dont like others making articles better, but stop vandalizing pages by reverting good edits. I am hesitant to give you a warning, but I will. Frankly, its people like you who are driving editors away from Wikipedia and preventing so many articles from being improved. Go away.  TJ   Spyke   00:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't react like this to new editors. I react this way to editors who have been editing here for 7-odd years and are among the top 400 most prolific editors and who have received a shocking number of warnings and frank blocks including an indef block. You obviously know better than to persist in these games but yet you continue. AGF only extends so far. You clearly have no regard for community guidelines founded on consensus and are only interested in your own editorial decisions. I'm sorry that you decided to take this route. It was a very poor decision on your part. -Thibbs (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, to Derby Stallion (series) is full of unhelpful changes as per WP:NOTBROKEN.  Amalthea  09:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, I see no unhelpful edits. I will not pretend 100% of my edits have been helpful, but ask any average editor and that change is nothing but helpful. And frankly, you shouldnt drive away good editors since fewer and fewer people are editing Wikipedia now. I also notice that I only get hounded when I mass edit articles, I dont get harassed when I only edit a few articles a day.  TJ   Spyke   20:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "It is likewise unhelpful to edit visible links for no reason other than to avoid redirects." Amalthea  22:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A great majority of your NOTBROKEN violations are harmful actually. Try actually reading the guideline. You might be surprised to discover that there are at least six explicitly listed reasons not to change (bypass) redirects. One obvious one is that you are whitewashing usage stats - an activity that is at best completely pointless. But more often it's not completely harmless. It's directly harmful because it obscures the need for new articles on topics that aren't covered and it hides more appropriate and thus needed page-moves.
 * How on earth could these violations be "nothing but helpful"? I can't think of a single way that they help. Correcting incorrect titles or misspelled words or redirect like that is one thing, but how does it help anybody if you change horse breaking to horse training (to take a random example from the Derby Stallion article)? It hides the fact that there is no article on horse breaking - a clearly distinct concept from horse training and it reduces the likelihood that anyone will write an article on horse breaking. In what world does that help in any way whatsoever? At very best it's a completely pointless time-wasting activity. And it's one that you have been warned over and over and over again to stop. Does the consensus of your fellow editor on this issue really matter so little to you that you are unwilling to put an end to this distinctly non-helpful activity? Does the possibility that you may get blocked for a 24th (!!!) time mean nothing to you? I hope I'm not overreacting here, but I find your conduct in this one trivial editorial area to be truly incomprehensible. -Thibbs (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been careful to avoid those types of link changes. How is changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3" doing any harm? There is never gonna be a "Playstation 3" article, ever. And in that Derby Stallion article, changing "PlayStation" to "PlayStation (console)" IS directly helpful and needed because the latter refers to the game system called PlayStation and the former refers to the general product line. Or changing links to "Famicom" to be "Nintendo Entertainment System|Famicom", there will never be a separate Famicom article because it's just the Japanese name of the NES. Sometimes I make mistakes (like with the horse breaking one), but I see it as vandalism when editors revert the whole edit instead of just specific link changes they see as bad.  TJ   Spyke   15:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Look I recognize that apart from this one issue (and I guess the 3RR stuff from your past that I think you've mostly stopped now) you are a good editor. And I also recognize that you're human and that you may make mistakes. But seeing as how you've made so many many mistakes in this one particular area I would seriously recommend avoiding it altogether. Just skimming the cleanups you've performed since you were last unblocked, it's apparent that the large majority of the redirect "fixes" you performed were potentially harmful. And a tiny minority of them are helpful in any way.
 * Is there a reason you feel compelled to change the redirects? I assume it's not just to boost your edit count, right? But is it just because it looks ugly on WPCleaner? Or do you really think that this is somehow helpful? If you do think it is helpful then have you considered making the case to change the guidelines at WP:NOTBROKEN? Because there are only 2 listed exceptions to that guideline currently. I wouldn't say that this is a complete list of all good exceptions, though. Your example of changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3", for instance, seems to me to be correcting a misspelling (or really a mis-capitalization). And I think that this is helpful and that it should be listed as an exception to WP:NOTBROKEN.
 * Why don't you and I try to come up with some exceptions that we could propose to the community together to improve the guidelines so that you're not constantly violating them? If you could come up with a reason why changing "video arcade" to "amusement arcade" or how changing "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System" or how changing "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" helps in any way then you could certainly make that suggestion as well. This would be a much much better way of approaching the problem than just ignoring everyone's warnings and getting banned over and over, don't you think? I'd be willing to help draft some proposed changes if you're willing to engage with me and explain why you feel compelled to violate this guideline. -Thibbs (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me (and withe something like the Dragon Quest, it's because the series name in English was Dragon Warrior before the the Dragon Quest VIII. Amusement arcade and video arcade are essentially interchangeable terms like "pop" and "soda". As for Famicom, aren't we supposed to use English names of products if that is the best known name? Famicom is just the Japanese name of the NES, so I would think other WP policies supported changing them to NES). I've never bothered trying to have NOTBROKEN changed because I know from experience how hard it can be to have policies on Wikipedia changed. Maybe later today or something we can start working on this together to propose changes that seem like common sense to most people.  TJ   Spyke   16:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm encouraged by your attitude. I think we should discuss this thoroughly between us here before proposing anything so that we're clear in our arguments. It's OK if we disagree too, since we can propose changes individually to be accepted piecemeal rather than only as a single package. Anyway here are my thoughts on what you've said just above:
 * Like the term "video arcade", the other two are also examples of synonymous terms: Dragon Warrior is the North American term whereas the English term is actually Dragon Quest (the same is true for all European countries and Japan actually); Famicom is the original Japanese name for the NES. According to NOTBROKEN (point 6), the use of a synonymous redirect term provides useful information relating to usage of the term which can be considered as evidence for renaming the article. By systematically changing these links to the current non-redirect title, you are manipulating the usage statistics. As an example: it might be that the term "Dragon Quest" is better known than "Dragon Warrior", but because you'd have changed all of the "Dragon Quest" redirects into "Dragon Warrior," you would have eradicated this information and we would get a false impression that "Dragon Warrior" was the most commonly used term when in reality it was only the most commonly used because the statistics had been manipulated. If you don't like that example, try imagining the reverse. Imagine someone who called the game "Dragon Quest" trying to make the case that the article should be renamed. So first he would change all the links to redirects and then point to the incoming links as evidence that everyone calls it Dragon Quest. You can see how that would be a problem, right? I think what NOTBROKEN is saying is that it's safest if we rely on the real usage statistics by refraining from changing synonymous terms. They are synonyms, after all, so the meaning is identical, right?
 * But I think you might have a point if your central concern was consistency. There have been large discussions in the past regarding whether or not Wikipedia should preferentially use the term "Sega Genesis" or "Master Drive" for example. I'm sure the same could exist for terms from popular consumer products like "Famicom/NES" or "Dragon Quest/Warrior" as well. If there has been a community discussion where one term was decided as the preferred term then I think you could make the case that perhaps it would be a good idea to use a single term in the interest of consistency. Does that sound like it might be the core of your argument for these words? Or do you instead find a problem with NOTBROKEN's argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics?
 * Another redirect dodge I was hoping you could explain is when you changed "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games". These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN's argument that "Shortcuts or redirects to sections of articles ... should never be bypassed, as the section headings on the page may change over time [and] Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links" (point 4; emphasis and ellipses added). So you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions? -Thibbs (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi TJ Spyke. Just checking in again. What's happening now? Why has this conversation stalled? Have you had a chance to read what I just wrote above? I noticed that you've again resumed with the NOTBROKEN violations (swapping "United States of America" for "United States"). I don't think it's too much to ask that you completely refrain from this kind of edit until we've finished discussing our plans for how to present our argument at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. You are violating the guidelines when you make this kind of edit and you've been asked to stop over and over again. Please help me come up with some exceptions that we can present for consensus instead of just continuing to stubbornly violate the guidelines and hope that I'll go away. I won't. I really want to work with you here, but if I see it again I will bring it to AN/I. -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, I didnt do anything wrong with United States. It's the common name of the country and what everyone writes (hell, even the article uses the name) and I know that did NOT violate any rule. Frankly, saying that deleting two words so it uses the common name is wrong, is like saying you can't edit a article to fix a spelling mistake. Might as well freeze all editing. Did I somehow violate it in another article when I changed Major League Baseball to Major League Baseball ? Anyways, i've been busy. But im free now.  TJ   Spyke   15:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Repairing broken wikilinks is not a violation of NOTBROKEN, but changing from one synonymous term (like the official name of a country) to another synonymous term (like the common name for a country) for the same target article is definitely a violation of NOTBROKEN. I don't mean this to sound rude, but you have to accept the fact that your judgment on whether or not a redirect "fix" violates NOTBROKEN is clearly quite poor. I strongly urge you to avoid making those kinds of edits even if you are certain that you're in the right because you are obviously unable to differentiate between violations and non-violations. Anyway I'm glad to hear that you're free now and I'm eager to get to work on the exceptions. -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding Dragon Warrior/Quest, it is not true that Quest was common in European countries. The first game in the series even RELEASED in Europe was Dragon Warrior Monsters in 1999 (where it used "Warrior"), they didnt get another one until Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King (which was when Square Enix FIRST used the "Quest" name outside of Japan). So considering that for almost 20 years the only English name of the series was "Warrior", it makes sense for the ones released with the Warrior name to use that. As for exceptions to NOTBROKEN:


 * I think fixing spelling mistakes and capitalization (i.e. Playstation to PlayStation) are good ones that are not controversial.
 * Hmmm, maybe switching some to the most common name can be OK (though within the right context)
 * Sometimes things will never get an article. I.e. a character who appeared once on a TV show 20 years ago will probably never get an article as they are not notable enough, but they might have an entry in a article about characters from that show. Is it a problem to change a link to that section specifically?
 * If a product is released under one name in most of the world, shouldn't it be OK to write that as the name? I.e. NES/Famicom. Famicom is the Japanese name of the system, but they are still the same system. Doesn't it make sense to change the links to NES? It's especially ridiculous when some articles say a game was released on the NES and Famicom (implying they are different).

Maybe others, but these are off the top of my head.  TJ   Spyke   15:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All PAL versions of the main series are called "Dragon Quest," but that's quite beside the point. The point is that these are synonymous terms and "fixing" them to avoid the redirect violates NOTBROKEN point #6. Unless there has been a discussion leading to a consistency-based preference for one term over the other, the term used by the first European spinoff title has no significance whatsoever and the redirect should not be altered. But this brings me to the question I asked last week:
 * Is switching "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" (or "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System", etc.) something that you have been doing in the interest of inter-article consistency? Is that the core of your argument? Or do you simply reject NOTBROKEN's point #6 (i.e. the argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics)?
 * And as long as I'm re-asking questions from last week,...
 * Could you explain your thought process behind changing "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games"? These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN point #4 (described in last week's comment above). Do you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions?
 * Regarding your exceptions, I agree strongly with the first one (spelling & capitalization). That's definitely going into the final draft of our proposal. I also think that the alteration of redirect terms to reflect a consistent consensus-based terminology (if indeed such a consensus exists) is a good idea. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
 * The other three points you bring up are kind of confusing for me. I don't really think you've presented any argument for making them into exceptions. Basically your reasoning appears to boil down to "Let's make these into exceptions, because why not?" The problem with this is that NOTBROKEN is a consensus-based guideline. Nobody would take us seriously if we proposed exceptions to it without actually giving concrete reasons why the exceptions are needed. The answer to your "is it a problem?" and "shouldn't it be OK?" questions above would be answered by the editors at NOTBROKEN with "Yes it's a problem (see point #4), and no it's not OK (see point #6)." These are consensus-based views on those exact topics.
 * To create an exception we can't just ignore consensus. We have to find a reason that the consensus view is too broad and that in narrowly definable situations the general rules at NOTBROKEN should be excepted. Then we have to convince others based on solid reasoning. If there is no way to distinguish the area to which the rule applies from the area to which the exception applies then we have to propose knocking down part of the rules which will be a much more difficult task and will absolutely require ironclad arguments, not just "why not?" In addition to answering the questions I bulleted above, could you please try to think of specific reasons why we need (or how it would be helpful to have) an exception for common names, obscure aspects, and synonymous terms? -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again TJ Spyke. What is your schedule like? Are you going to have any free time in the next few weeks? I'd like to move forward with our plans regarding the development of a few more exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN. It's been nearly a month since we began talking about this, but if we're to move this forward we have to actually discuss it. I don't want to do this without your help. In fact most of my interest in getting this done is to help editors like you who seem to have problems with the current guidelines. Is this something that still interests you? When will you be available to answer questions like those I asked in the last post? Please don't just leave me hanging here. -Thibbs (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well while I'm waiting for word from you on some kind of timeframe I noticed that you'd performed a few more redirect "fixes" since I last asked you to stop and I can report that I agree most of them. But edits like this and this suggest further exceptions to the rule. From the first of those two links (relinking to the actual page name on a dab page), I think this brings up a good point - that we should add an exception for disambiguation pages per WP:PIPING. The second one (changing a link to a plural term into a link to the singular) looks like just another "fix" for reasons of your own. Can you explain that change? Was there a reason you decided to again violate NOTBROKEN in that case? For all I know there may be policy/guideline supporting that edit but if so then this suggests another good exception. -Thibbs (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and  claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place and second place  both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 16:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

HELP Keep a Social Media War off Wikipedia
There appears to be a Social Media War that has been brought here to Wikipedia, and negative info is being left on the Michelle Borth page that is not necessary. You came to me a few years ago, explaining the boundaries of Wikipedia. Well it appears that they are being broken on Michelle's page. Any input, feedback would help. This little war/argument has gone too far especially now that is being brought to other sites like Wikipedia. This particular user is claiming I have no right to remove the negative info about Michelle, regardless of whether it is true or not, until it is discussed. I feel that if me and this user attempted to discuss, it will get very heated, and you seem to really know ur way, I'd appreciate it Taker22 (talk) 10:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Continual redirect problems by User:TJ Spyke. Thank you. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 23:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're about to be blocked indefinitely. If I were you I'd be pleading my case at ANI. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Ashley Fliehr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Providence High School


 * List of acronyms: W (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to WWF


 * Takeshi's Castle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Fuji

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Question about cleanup process
Hi TJ Spyke, I noticed that you've been cleaning up numerous articles today and I was curious how you were doing it. Is it all by hand or do you use a program? Specifically I'm curious how you check the wikilinks. Are you testing each one individually or is there a tool you have that highlights all redirects? -Thibbs (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I use WPCleaner to check articles, but there are some edits that can't be made with it (like spellchecking, typos, etc.), so I then manually edit it after (essentially, I copy and paste the results from WPCleaner, then continue editing the article).  TJ   Spyke   21:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. Is WPCleaner something that you can download from a Wikimedia site/affiliate or should I just Google it if I want to find it? -Thibbs (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here you go: WPCleaner.  TJ   Spyke   21:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm sorry to say I've reverted your edit at the Derby Stallion article yet again. The links that you are "fixing" are indeed redirect links. And per WP:NOTBROKEN, redirects within an article are not supposed to be changed so that they point to the target article instead. There are a number of reasons why this is harmful to Wikipedia and they're clearly spelled out under WP:NOTBROKEN. This has become a problem in the past with users accidentally abusing the Navigation popup tool to "fix" redirects as you're doing and the result was this page. This is actually the reason I was asking above what tool you were using. I was curious to see what other tools were being subjected to this kind of abuse. The WPCleaner talk page is filled with comments regarding users mistakenly "fixing" redirects (e.g. 1, 2, 3, and many more in the archives from 2008 and earlier). The thing is... I've already explained all of this to you in the past (see e.g. 1 and 2). And I know you are aware of this issue because you have already received a final warning on the subject. So I really don't see how what you are doing could be considered good faith editing. Your editing is contrary to the guidelines and you have been repeatedly told this and warned to stop. Normally I'd suggest trying to get the guidelines changed before carrying on in this way, but in this case from your block log it's clear to me that you've consciously decided to change matters unilaterally rather than by seeking consensus. For this reason I've requested administrative action. -Thibbs (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, you did not read NOTBROKEN correctly at all. I have not been making the kinds of edits that got me into trouble before, I have been careful to only makes ones that follow the guidelines. I am sorry that you are not a good editor and dont like others making articles better, but stop vandalizing pages by reverting good edits. I am hesitant to give you a warning, but I will. Frankly, its people like you who are driving editors away from Wikipedia and preventing so many articles from being improved. Go away.  TJ   Spyke   00:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't react like this to new editors. I react this way to editors who have been editing here for 7-odd years and are among the top 400 most prolific editors and who have received a shocking number of warnings and frank blocks including an indef block. You obviously know better than to persist in these games but yet you continue. AGF only extends so far. You clearly have no regard for community guidelines founded on consensus and are only interested in your own editorial decisions. I'm sorry that you decided to take this route. It was a very poor decision on your part. -Thibbs (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, to Derby Stallion (series) is full of unhelpful changes as per WP:NOTBROKEN.  Amalthea  09:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, I see no unhelpful edits. I will not pretend 100% of my edits have been helpful, but ask any average editor and that change is nothing but helpful. And frankly, you shouldnt drive away good editors since fewer and fewer people are editing Wikipedia now. I also notice that I only get hounded when I mass edit articles, I dont get harassed when I only edit a few articles a day.  TJ   Spyke   20:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "It is likewise unhelpful to edit visible links for no reason other than to avoid redirects." Amalthea  22:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A great majority of your NOTBROKEN violations are harmful actually. Try actually reading the guideline. You might be surprised to discover that there are at least six explicitly listed reasons not to change (bypass) redirects. One obvious one is that you are whitewashing usage stats - an activity that is at best completely pointless. But more often it's not completely harmless. It's directly harmful because it obscures the need for new articles on topics that aren't covered and it hides more appropriate and thus needed page-moves.
 * How on earth could these violations be "nothing but helpful"? I can't think of a single way that they help. Correcting incorrect titles or misspelled words or redirect like that is one thing, but how does it help anybody if you change horse breaking to horse training (to take a random example from the Derby Stallion article)? It hides the fact that there is no article on horse breaking - a clearly distinct concept from horse training and it reduces the likelihood that anyone will write an article on horse breaking. In what world does that help in any way whatsoever? At very best it's a completely pointless time-wasting activity. And it's one that you have been warned over and over and over again to stop. Does the consensus of your fellow editor on this issue really matter so little to you that you are unwilling to put an end to this distinctly non-helpful activity? Does the possibility that you may get blocked for a 24th (!!!) time mean nothing to you? I hope I'm not overreacting here, but I find your conduct in this one trivial editorial area to be truly incomprehensible. -Thibbs (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been careful to avoid those types of link changes. How is changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3" doing any harm? There is never gonna be a "Playstation 3" article, ever. And in that Derby Stallion article, changing "PlayStation" to "PlayStation (console)" IS directly helpful and needed because the latter refers to the game system called PlayStation and the former refers to the general product line. Or changing links to "Famicom" to be "Nintendo Entertainment System|Famicom", there will never be a separate Famicom article because it's just the Japanese name of the NES. Sometimes I make mistakes (like with the horse breaking one), but I see it as vandalism when editors revert the whole edit instead of just specific link changes they see as bad.  TJ   Spyke   15:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Look I recognize that apart from this one issue (and I guess the 3RR stuff from your past that I think you've mostly stopped now) you are a good editor. And I also recognize that you're human and that you may make mistakes. But seeing as how you've made so many many mistakes in this one particular area I would seriously recommend avoiding it altogether. Just skimming the cleanups you've performed since you were last unblocked, it's apparent that the large majority of the redirect "fixes" you performed were potentially harmful. And a tiny minority of them are helpful in any way.
 * Is there a reason you feel compelled to change the redirects? I assume it's not just to boost your edit count, right? But is it just because it looks ugly on WPCleaner? Or do you really think that this is somehow helpful? If you do think it is helpful then have you considered making the case to change the guidelines at WP:NOTBROKEN? Because there are only 2 listed exceptions to that guideline currently. I wouldn't say that this is a complete list of all good exceptions, though. Your example of changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3", for instance, seems to me to be correcting a misspelling (or really a mis-capitalization). And I think that this is helpful and that it should be listed as an exception to WP:NOTBROKEN.
 * Why don't you and I try to come up with some exceptions that we could propose to the community together to improve the guidelines so that you're not constantly violating them? If you could come up with a reason why changing "video arcade" to "amusement arcade" or how changing "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System" or how changing "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" helps in any way then you could certainly make that suggestion as well. This would be a much much better way of approaching the problem than just ignoring everyone's warnings and getting banned over and over, don't you think? I'd be willing to help draft some proposed changes if you're willing to engage with me and explain why you feel compelled to violate this guideline. -Thibbs (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me (and withe something like the Dragon Quest, it's because the series name in English was Dragon Warrior before the the Dragon Quest VIII. Amusement arcade and video arcade are essentially interchangeable terms like "pop" and "soda". As for Famicom, aren't we supposed to use English names of products if that is the best known name? Famicom is just the Japanese name of the NES, so I would think other WP policies supported changing them to NES). I've never bothered trying to have NOTBROKEN changed because I know from experience how hard it can be to have policies on Wikipedia changed. Maybe later today or something we can start working on this together to propose changes that seem like common sense to most people.  TJ   Spyke   16:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm encouraged by your attitude. I think we should discuss this thoroughly between us here before proposing anything so that we're clear in our arguments. It's OK if we disagree too, since we can propose changes individually to be accepted piecemeal rather than only as a single package. Anyway here are my thoughts on what you've said just above:
 * Like the term "video arcade", the other two are also examples of synonymous terms: Dragon Warrior is the North American term whereas the English term is actually Dragon Quest (the same is true for all European countries and Japan actually); Famicom is the original Japanese name for the NES. According to NOTBROKEN (point 6), the use of a synonymous redirect term provides useful information relating to usage of the term which can be considered as evidence for renaming the article. By systematically changing these links to the current non-redirect title, you are manipulating the usage statistics. As an example: it might be that the term "Dragon Quest" is better known than "Dragon Warrior", but because you'd have changed all of the "Dragon Quest" redirects into "Dragon Warrior," you would have eradicated this information and we would get a false impression that "Dragon Warrior" was the most commonly used term when in reality it was only the most commonly used because the statistics had been manipulated. If you don't like that example, try imagining the reverse. Imagine someone who called the game "Dragon Quest" trying to make the case that the article should be renamed. So first he would change all the links to redirects and then point to the incoming links as evidence that everyone calls it Dragon Quest. You can see how that would be a problem, right? I think what NOTBROKEN is saying is that it's safest if we rely on the real usage statistics by refraining from changing synonymous terms. They are synonyms, after all, so the meaning is identical, right?
 * But I think you might have a point if your central concern was consistency. There have been large discussions in the past regarding whether or not Wikipedia should preferentially use the term "Sega Genesis" or "Master Drive" for example. I'm sure the same could exist for terms from popular consumer products like "Famicom/NES" or "Dragon Quest/Warrior" as well. If there has been a community discussion where one term was decided as the preferred term then I think you could make the case that perhaps it would be a good idea to use a single term in the interest of consistency. Does that sound like it might be the core of your argument for these words? Or do you instead find a problem with NOTBROKEN's argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics?
 * Another redirect dodge I was hoping you could explain is when you changed "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games". These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN's argument that "Shortcuts or redirects to sections of articles ... should never be bypassed, as the section headings on the page may change over time [and] Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links" (point 4; emphasis and ellipses added). So you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions? -Thibbs (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi TJ Spyke. Just checking in again. What's happening now? Why has this conversation stalled? Have you had a chance to read what I just wrote above? I noticed that you've again resumed with the NOTBROKEN violations (swapping "United States of America" for "United States"). I don't think it's too much to ask that you completely refrain from this kind of edit until we've finished discussing our plans for how to present our argument at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. You are violating the guidelines when you make this kind of edit and you've been asked to stop over and over again. Please help me come up with some exceptions that we can present for consensus instead of just continuing to stubbornly violate the guidelines and hope that I'll go away. I won't. I really want to work with you here, but if I see it again I will bring it to AN/I. -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, I didnt do anything wrong with United States. It's the common name of the country and what everyone writes (hell, even the article uses the name) and I know that did NOT violate any rule. Frankly, saying that deleting two words so it uses the common name is wrong, is like saying you can't edit a article to fix a spelling mistake. Might as well freeze all editing. Did I somehow violate it in another article when I changed Major League Baseball to Major League Baseball ? Anyways, i've been busy. But im free now.  TJ   Spyke   15:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Repairing broken wikilinks is not a violation of NOTBROKEN, but changing from one synonymous term (like the official name of a country) to another synonymous term (like the common name for a country) for the same target article is definitely a violation of NOTBROKEN. I don't mean this to sound rude, but you have to accept the fact that your judgment on whether or not a redirect "fix" violates NOTBROKEN is clearly quite poor. I strongly urge you to avoid making those kinds of edits even if you are certain that you're in the right because you are obviously unable to differentiate between violations and non-violations. Anyway I'm glad to hear that you're free now and I'm eager to get to work on the exceptions. -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding Dragon Warrior/Quest, it is not true that Quest was common in European countries. The first game in the series even RELEASED in Europe was Dragon Warrior Monsters in 1999 (where it used "Warrior"), they didnt get another one until Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King (which was when Square Enix FIRST used the "Quest" name outside of Japan). So considering that for almost 20 years the only English name of the series was "Warrior", it makes sense for the ones released with the Warrior name to use that. As for exceptions to NOTBROKEN:


 * I think fixing spelling mistakes and capitalization (i.e. Playstation to PlayStation) are good ones that are not controversial.
 * Hmmm, maybe switching some to the most common name can be OK (though within the right context)
 * Sometimes things will never get an article. I.e. a character who appeared once on a TV show 20 years ago will probably never get an article as they are not notable enough, but they might have an entry in a article about characters from that show. Is it a problem to change a link to that section specifically?
 * If a product is released under one name in most of the world, shouldn't it be OK to write that as the name? I.e. NES/Famicom. Famicom is the Japanese name of the system, but they are still the same system. Doesn't it make sense to change the links to NES? It's especially ridiculous when some articles say a game was released on the NES and Famicom (implying they are different).

Maybe others, but these are off the top of my head.  TJ   Spyke   15:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All PAL versions of the main series are called "Dragon Quest," but that's quite beside the point. The point is that these are synonymous terms and "fixing" them to avoid the redirect violates NOTBROKEN point #6. Unless there has been a discussion leading to a consistency-based preference for one term over the other, the term used by the first European spinoff title has no significance whatsoever and the redirect should not be altered. But this brings me to the question I asked last week:
 * Is switching "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" (or "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System", etc.) something that you have been doing in the interest of inter-article consistency? Is that the core of your argument? Or do you simply reject NOTBROKEN's point #6 (i.e. the argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics)?
 * And as long as I'm re-asking questions from last week,...
 * Could you explain your thought process behind changing "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games"? These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN point #4 (described in last week's comment above). Do you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions?
 * Regarding your exceptions, I agree strongly with the first one (spelling & capitalization). That's definitely going into the final draft of our proposal. I also think that the alteration of redirect terms to reflect a consistent consensus-based terminology (if indeed such a consensus exists) is a good idea. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
 * The other three points you bring up are kind of confusing for me. I don't really think you've presented any argument for making them into exceptions. Basically your reasoning appears to boil down to "Let's make these into exceptions, because why not?" The problem with this is that NOTBROKEN is a consensus-based guideline. Nobody would take us seriously if we proposed exceptions to it without actually giving concrete reasons why the exceptions are needed. The answer to your "is it a problem?" and "shouldn't it be OK?" questions above would be answered by the editors at NOTBROKEN with "Yes it's a problem (see point #4), and no it's not OK (see point #6)." These are consensus-based views on those exact topics.
 * To create an exception we can't just ignore consensus. We have to find a reason that the consensus view is too broad and that in narrowly definable situations the general rules at NOTBROKEN should be excepted. Then we have to convince others based on solid reasoning. If there is no way to distinguish the area to which the rule applies from the area to which the exception applies then we have to propose knocking down part of the rules which will be a much more difficult task and will absolutely require ironclad arguments, not just "why not?" In addition to answering the questions I bulleted above, could you please try to think of specific reasons why we need (or how it would be helpful to have) an exception for common names, obscure aspects, and synonymous terms? -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again TJ Spyke. What is your schedule like? Are you going to have any free time in the next few weeks? I'd like to move forward with our plans regarding the development of a few more exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN. It's been nearly a month since we began talking about this, but if we're to move this forward we have to actually discuss it. I don't want to do this without your help. In fact most of my interest in getting this done is to help editors like you who seem to have problems with the current guidelines. Is this something that still interests you? When will you be available to answer questions like those I asked in the last post? Please don't just leave me hanging here. -Thibbs (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well while I'm waiting for word from you on some kind of timeframe I noticed that you'd performed a few more redirect "fixes" since I last asked you to stop and I can report that I agree most of them. But edits like this and this suggest further exceptions to the rule. From the first of those two links (relinking to the actual page name on a dab page), I think this brings up a good point - that we should add an exception for disambiguation pages per WP:PIPING. The second one (changing a link to a plural term into a link to the singular) looks like just another "fix" for reasons of your own. Can you explain that change? Was there a reason you decided to again violate NOTBROKEN in that case? For all I know there may be policy/guideline supporting that edit but if so then this suggests another good exception. -Thibbs (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and  claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place and second place  both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 16:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

HELP Keep a Social Media War off Wikipedia
There appears to be a Social Media War that has been brought here to Wikipedia, and negative info is being left on the Michelle Borth page that is not necessary. You came to me a few years ago, explaining the boundaries of Wikipedia. Well it appears that they are being broken on Michelle's page. Any input, feedback would help. This little war/argument has gone too far especially now that is being brought to other sites like Wikipedia. This particular user is claiming I have no right to remove the negative info about Michelle, regardless of whether it is true or not, until it is discussed. I feel that if me and this user attempted to discuss, it will get very heated, and you seem to really know ur way, I'd appreciate it Taker22 (talk) 10:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Continual redirect problems by User:TJ Spyke. Thank you. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 23:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're about to be blocked indefinitely. If I were you I'd be pleading my case at ANI. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Ashley Fliehr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Providence High School


 * List of acronyms: W (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to WWF


 * Takeshi's Castle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Fuji

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Question about cleanup process
Hi TJ Spyke, I noticed that you've been cleaning up numerous articles today and I was curious how you were doing it. Is it all by hand or do you use a program? Specifically I'm curious how you check the wikilinks. Are you testing each one individually or is there a tool you have that highlights all redirects? -Thibbs (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I use WPCleaner to check articles, but there are some edits that can't be made with it (like spellchecking, typos, etc.), so I then manually edit it after (essentially, I copy and paste the results from WPCleaner, then continue editing the article).  TJ   Spyke   21:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. Is WPCleaner something that you can download from a Wikimedia site/affiliate or should I just Google it if I want to find it? -Thibbs (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here you go: WPCleaner.  TJ   Spyke   21:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm sorry to say I've reverted your edit at the Derby Stallion article yet again. The links that you are "fixing" are indeed redirect links. And per WP:NOTBROKEN, redirects within an article are not supposed to be changed so that they point to the target article instead. There are a number of reasons why this is harmful to Wikipedia and they're clearly spelled out under WP:NOTBROKEN. This has become a problem in the past with users accidentally abusing the Navigation popup tool to "fix" redirects as you're doing and the result was this page. This is actually the reason I was asking above what tool you were using. I was curious to see what other tools were being subjected to this kind of abuse. The WPCleaner talk page is filled with comments regarding users mistakenly "fixing" redirects (e.g. 1, 2, 3, and many more in the archives from 2008 and earlier). The thing is... I've already explained all of this to you in the past (see e.g. 1 and 2). And I know you are aware of this issue because you have already received a final warning on the subject. So I really don't see how what you are doing could be considered good faith editing. Your editing is contrary to the guidelines and you have been repeatedly told this and warned to stop. Normally I'd suggest trying to get the guidelines changed before carrying on in this way, but in this case from your block log it's clear to me that you've consciously decided to change matters unilaterally rather than by seeking consensus. For this reason I've requested administrative action. -Thibbs (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, you did not read NOTBROKEN correctly at all. I have not been making the kinds of edits that got me into trouble before, I have been careful to only makes ones that follow the guidelines. I am sorry that you are not a good editor and dont like others making articles better, but stop vandalizing pages by reverting good edits. I am hesitant to give you a warning, but I will. Frankly, its people like you who are driving editors away from Wikipedia and preventing so many articles from being improved. Go away.  TJ   Spyke   00:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't react like this to new editors. I react this way to editors who have been editing here for 7-odd years and are among the top 400 most prolific editors and who have received a shocking number of warnings and frank blocks including an indef block. You obviously know better than to persist in these games but yet you continue. AGF only extends so far. You clearly have no regard for community guidelines founded on consensus and are only interested in your own editorial decisions. I'm sorry that you decided to take this route. It was a very poor decision on your part. -Thibbs (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, to Derby Stallion (series) is full of unhelpful changes as per WP:NOTBROKEN.  Amalthea  09:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, I see no unhelpful edits. I will not pretend 100% of my edits have been helpful, but ask any average editor and that change is nothing but helpful. And frankly, you shouldnt drive away good editors since fewer and fewer people are editing Wikipedia now. I also notice that I only get hounded when I mass edit articles, I dont get harassed when I only edit a few articles a day.  TJ   Spyke   20:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "It is likewise unhelpful to edit visible links for no reason other than to avoid redirects." Amalthea  22:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A great majority of your NOTBROKEN violations are harmful actually. Try actually reading the guideline. You might be surprised to discover that there are at least six explicitly listed reasons not to change (bypass) redirects. One obvious one is that you are whitewashing usage stats - an activity that is at best completely pointless. But more often it's not completely harmless. It's directly harmful because it obscures the need for new articles on topics that aren't covered and it hides more appropriate and thus needed page-moves.
 * How on earth could these violations be "nothing but helpful"? I can't think of a single way that they help. Correcting incorrect titles or misspelled words or redirect like that is one thing, but how does it help anybody if you change horse breaking to horse training (to take a random example from the Derby Stallion article)? It hides the fact that there is no article on horse breaking - a clearly distinct concept from horse training and it reduces the likelihood that anyone will write an article on horse breaking. In what world does that help in any way whatsoever? At very best it's a completely pointless time-wasting activity. And it's one that you have been warned over and over and over again to stop. Does the consensus of your fellow editor on this issue really matter so little to you that you are unwilling to put an end to this distinctly non-helpful activity? Does the possibility that you may get blocked for a 24th (!!!) time mean nothing to you? I hope I'm not overreacting here, but I find your conduct in this one trivial editorial area to be truly incomprehensible. -Thibbs (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been careful to avoid those types of link changes. How is changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3" doing any harm? There is never gonna be a "Playstation 3" article, ever. And in that Derby Stallion article, changing "PlayStation" to "PlayStation (console)" IS directly helpful and needed because the latter refers to the game system called PlayStation and the former refers to the general product line. Or changing links to "Famicom" to be "Nintendo Entertainment System|Famicom", there will never be a separate Famicom article because it's just the Japanese name of the NES. Sometimes I make mistakes (like with the horse breaking one), but I see it as vandalism when editors revert the whole edit instead of just specific link changes they see as bad.  TJ   Spyke   15:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Look I recognize that apart from this one issue (and I guess the 3RR stuff from your past that I think you've mostly stopped now) you are a good editor. And I also recognize that you're human and that you may make mistakes. But seeing as how you've made so many many mistakes in this one particular area I would seriously recommend avoiding it altogether. Just skimming the cleanups you've performed since you were last unblocked, it's apparent that the large majority of the redirect "fixes" you performed were potentially harmful. And a tiny minority of them are helpful in any way.
 * Is there a reason you feel compelled to change the redirects? I assume it's not just to boost your edit count, right? But is it just because it looks ugly on WPCleaner? Or do you really think that this is somehow helpful? If you do think it is helpful then have you considered making the case to change the guidelines at WP:NOTBROKEN? Because there are only 2 listed exceptions to that guideline currently. I wouldn't say that this is a complete list of all good exceptions, though. Your example of changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3", for instance, seems to me to be correcting a misspelling (or really a mis-capitalization). And I think that this is helpful and that it should be listed as an exception to WP:NOTBROKEN.
 * Why don't you and I try to come up with some exceptions that we could propose to the community together to improve the guidelines so that you're not constantly violating them? If you could come up with a reason why changing "video arcade" to "amusement arcade" or how changing "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System" or how changing "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" helps in any way then you could certainly make that suggestion as well. This would be a much much better way of approaching the problem than just ignoring everyone's warnings and getting banned over and over, don't you think? I'd be willing to help draft some proposed changes if you're willing to engage with me and explain why you feel compelled to violate this guideline. -Thibbs (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me (and withe something like the Dragon Quest, it's because the series name in English was Dragon Warrior before the the Dragon Quest VIII. Amusement arcade and video arcade are essentially interchangeable terms like "pop" and "soda". As for Famicom, aren't we supposed to use English names of products if that is the best known name? Famicom is just the Japanese name of the NES, so I would think other WP policies supported changing them to NES). I've never bothered trying to have NOTBROKEN changed because I know from experience how hard it can be to have policies on Wikipedia changed. Maybe later today or something we can start working on this together to propose changes that seem like common sense to most people.  TJ   Spyke   16:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm encouraged by your attitude. I think we should discuss this thoroughly between us here before proposing anything so that we're clear in our arguments. It's OK if we disagree too, since we can propose changes individually to be accepted piecemeal rather than only as a single package. Anyway here are my thoughts on what you've said just above:
 * Like the term "video arcade", the other two are also examples of synonymous terms: Dragon Warrior is the North American term whereas the English term is actually Dragon Quest (the same is true for all European countries and Japan actually); Famicom is the original Japanese name for the NES. According to NOTBROKEN (point 6), the use of a synonymous redirect term provides useful information relating to usage of the term which can be considered as evidence for renaming the article. By systematically changing these links to the current non-redirect title, you are manipulating the usage statistics. As an example: it might be that the term "Dragon Quest" is better known than "Dragon Warrior", but because you'd have changed all of the "Dragon Quest" redirects into "Dragon Warrior," you would have eradicated this information and we would get a false impression that "Dragon Warrior" was the most commonly used term when in reality it was only the most commonly used because the statistics had been manipulated. If you don't like that example, try imagining the reverse. Imagine someone who called the game "Dragon Quest" trying to make the case that the article should be renamed. So first he would change all the links to redirects and then point to the incoming links as evidence that everyone calls it Dragon Quest. You can see how that would be a problem, right? I think what NOTBROKEN is saying is that it's safest if we rely on the real usage statistics by refraining from changing synonymous terms. They are synonyms, after all, so the meaning is identical, right?
 * But I think you might have a point if your central concern was consistency. There have been large discussions in the past regarding whether or not Wikipedia should preferentially use the term "Sega Genesis" or "Master Drive" for example. I'm sure the same could exist for terms from popular consumer products like "Famicom/NES" or "Dragon Quest/Warrior" as well. If there has been a community discussion where one term was decided as the preferred term then I think you could make the case that perhaps it would be a good idea to use a single term in the interest of consistency. Does that sound like it might be the core of your argument for these words? Or do you instead find a problem with NOTBROKEN's argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics?
 * Another redirect dodge I was hoping you could explain is when you changed "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games". These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN's argument that "Shortcuts or redirects to sections of articles ... should never be bypassed, as the section headings on the page may change over time [and] Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links" (point 4; emphasis and ellipses added). So you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions? -Thibbs (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi TJ Spyke. Just checking in again. What's happening now? Why has this conversation stalled? Have you had a chance to read what I just wrote above? I noticed that you've again resumed with the NOTBROKEN violations (swapping "United States of America" for "United States"). I don't think it's too much to ask that you completely refrain from this kind of edit until we've finished discussing our plans for how to present our argument at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. You are violating the guidelines when you make this kind of edit and you've been asked to stop over and over again. Please help me come up with some exceptions that we can present for consensus instead of just continuing to stubbornly violate the guidelines and hope that I'll go away. I won't. I really want to work with you here, but if I see it again I will bring it to AN/I. -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, I didnt do anything wrong with United States. It's the common name of the country and what everyone writes (hell, even the article uses the name) and I know that did NOT violate any rule. Frankly, saying that deleting two words so it uses the common name is wrong, is like saying you can't edit a article to fix a spelling mistake. Might as well freeze all editing. Did I somehow violate it in another article when I changed Major League Baseball to Major League Baseball ? Anyways, i've been busy. But im free now.  TJ   Spyke   15:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Repairing broken wikilinks is not a violation of NOTBROKEN, but changing from one synonymous term (like the official name of a country) to another synonymous term (like the common name for a country) for the same target article is definitely a violation of NOTBROKEN. I don't mean this to sound rude, but you have to accept the fact that your judgment on whether or not a redirect "fix" violates NOTBROKEN is clearly quite poor. I strongly urge you to avoid making those kinds of edits even if you are certain that you're in the right because you are obviously unable to differentiate between violations and non-violations. Anyway I'm glad to hear that you're free now and I'm eager to get to work on the exceptions. -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding Dragon Warrior/Quest, it is not true that Quest was common in European countries. The first game in the series even RELEASED in Europe was Dragon Warrior Monsters in 1999 (where it used "Warrior"), they didnt get another one until Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King (which was when Square Enix FIRST used the "Quest" name outside of Japan). So considering that for almost 20 years the only English name of the series was "Warrior", it makes sense for the ones released with the Warrior name to use that. As for exceptions to NOTBROKEN:


 * I think fixing spelling mistakes and capitalization (i.e. Playstation to PlayStation) are good ones that are not controversial.
 * Hmmm, maybe switching some to the most common name can be OK (though within the right context)
 * Sometimes things will never get an article. I.e. a character who appeared once on a TV show 20 years ago will probably never get an article as they are not notable enough, but they might have an entry in a article about characters from that show. Is it a problem to change a link to that section specifically?
 * If a product is released under one name in most of the world, shouldn't it be OK to write that as the name? I.e. NES/Famicom. Famicom is the Japanese name of the system, but they are still the same system. Doesn't it make sense to change the links to NES? It's especially ridiculous when some articles say a game was released on the NES and Famicom (implying they are different).

Maybe others, but these are off the top of my head.  TJ   Spyke   15:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All PAL versions of the main series are called "Dragon Quest," but that's quite beside the point. The point is that these are synonymous terms and "fixing" them to avoid the redirect violates NOTBROKEN point #6. Unless there has been a discussion leading to a consistency-based preference for one term over the other, the term used by the first European spinoff title has no significance whatsoever and the redirect should not be altered. But this brings me to the question I asked last week:
 * Is switching "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" (or "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System", etc.) something that you have been doing in the interest of inter-article consistency? Is that the core of your argument? Or do you simply reject NOTBROKEN's point #6 (i.e. the argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics)?
 * And as long as I'm re-asking questions from last week,...
 * Could you explain your thought process behind changing "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games"? These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN point #4 (described in last week's comment above). Do you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions?
 * Regarding your exceptions, I agree strongly with the first one (spelling & capitalization). That's definitely going into the final draft of our proposal. I also think that the alteration of redirect terms to reflect a consistent consensus-based terminology (if indeed such a consensus exists) is a good idea. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
 * The other three points you bring up are kind of confusing for me. I don't really think you've presented any argument for making them into exceptions. Basically your reasoning appears to boil down to "Let's make these into exceptions, because why not?" The problem with this is that NOTBROKEN is a consensus-based guideline. Nobody would take us seriously if we proposed exceptions to it without actually giving concrete reasons why the exceptions are needed. The answer to your "is it a problem?" and "shouldn't it be OK?" questions above would be answered by the editors at NOTBROKEN with "Yes it's a problem (see point #4), and no it's not OK (see point #6)." These are consensus-based views on those exact topics.
 * To create an exception we can't just ignore consensus. We have to find a reason that the consensus view is too broad and that in narrowly definable situations the general rules at NOTBROKEN should be excepted. Then we have to convince others based on solid reasoning. If there is no way to distinguish the area to which the rule applies from the area to which the exception applies then we have to propose knocking down part of the rules which will be a much more difficult task and will absolutely require ironclad arguments, not just "why not?" In addition to answering the questions I bulleted above, could you please try to think of specific reasons why we need (or how it would be helpful to have) an exception for common names, obscure aspects, and synonymous terms? -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again TJ Spyke. What is your schedule like? Are you going to have any free time in the next few weeks? I'd like to move forward with our plans regarding the development of a few more exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN. It's been nearly a month since we began talking about this, but if we're to move this forward we have to actually discuss it. I don't want to do this without your help. In fact most of my interest in getting this done is to help editors like you who seem to have problems with the current guidelines. Is this something that still interests you? When will you be available to answer questions like those I asked in the last post? Please don't just leave me hanging here. -Thibbs (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well while I'm waiting for word from you on some kind of timeframe I noticed that you'd performed a few more redirect "fixes" since I last asked you to stop and I can report that I agree most of them. But edits like this and this suggest further exceptions to the rule. From the first of those two links (relinking to the actual page name on a dab page), I think this brings up a good point - that we should add an exception for disambiguation pages per WP:PIPING. The second one (changing a link to a plural term into a link to the singular) looks like just another "fix" for reasons of your own. Can you explain that change? Was there a reason you decided to again violate NOTBROKEN in that case? For all I know there may be policy/guideline supporting that edit but if so then this suggests another good exception. -Thibbs (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and  claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place and second place  both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 16:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

HELP Keep a Social Media War off Wikipedia
There appears to be a Social Media War that has been brought here to Wikipedia, and negative info is being left on the Michelle Borth page that is not necessary. You came to me a few years ago, explaining the boundaries of Wikipedia. Well it appears that they are being broken on Michelle's page. Any input, feedback would help. This little war/argument has gone too far especially now that is being brought to other sites like Wikipedia. This particular user is claiming I have no right to remove the negative info about Michelle, regardless of whether it is true or not, until it is discussed. I feel that if me and this user attempted to discuss, it will get very heated, and you seem to really know ur way, I'd appreciate it Taker22 (talk) 10:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Continual redirect problems by User:TJ Spyke. Thank you. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 23:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're about to be blocked indefinitely. If I were you I'd be pleading my case at ANI. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Itadaki Street DS JPN.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Itadaki Street DS JPN.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Ashley Fliehr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Providence High School


 * List of acronyms: W (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to WWF


 * Takeshi's Castle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Fuji

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Question about cleanup process
Hi TJ Spyke, I noticed that you've been cleaning up numerous articles today and I was curious how you were doing it. Is it all by hand or do you use a program? Specifically I'm curious how you check the wikilinks. Are you testing each one individually or is there a tool you have that highlights all redirects? -Thibbs (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I use WPCleaner to check articles, but there are some edits that can't be made with it (like spellchecking, typos, etc.), so I then manually edit it after (essentially, I copy and paste the results from WPCleaner, then continue editing the article).  TJ   Spyke   21:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. Is WPCleaner something that you can download from a Wikimedia site/affiliate or should I just Google it if I want to find it? -Thibbs (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here you go: WPCleaner.  TJ   Spyke   21:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm sorry to say I've reverted your edit at the Derby Stallion article yet again. The links that you are "fixing" are indeed redirect links. And per WP:NOTBROKEN, redirects within an article are not supposed to be changed so that they point to the target article instead. There are a number of reasons why this is harmful to Wikipedia and they're clearly spelled out under WP:NOTBROKEN. This has become a problem in the past with users accidentally abusing the Navigation popup tool to "fix" redirects as you're doing and the result was this page. This is actually the reason I was asking above what tool you were using. I was curious to see what other tools were being subjected to this kind of abuse. The WPCleaner talk page is filled with comments regarding users mistakenly "fixing" redirects (e.g. 1, 2, 3, and many more in the archives from 2008 and earlier). The thing is... I've already explained all of this to you in the past (see e.g. 1 and 2). And I know you are aware of this issue because you have already received a final warning on the subject. So I really don't see how what you are doing could be considered good faith editing. Your editing is contrary to the guidelines and you have been repeatedly told this and warned to stop. Normally I'd suggest trying to get the guidelines changed before carrying on in this way, but in this case from your block log it's clear to me that you've consciously decided to change matters unilaterally rather than by seeking consensus. For this reason I've requested administrative action. -Thibbs (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, you did not read NOTBROKEN correctly at all. I have not been making the kinds of edits that got me into trouble before, I have been careful to only makes ones that follow the guidelines. I am sorry that you are not a good editor and dont like others making articles better, but stop vandalizing pages by reverting good edits. I am hesitant to give you a warning, but I will. Frankly, its people like you who are driving editors away from Wikipedia and preventing so many articles from being improved. Go away.  TJ   Spyke   00:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't react like this to new editors. I react this way to editors who have been editing here for 7-odd years and are among the top 400 most prolific editors and who have received a shocking number of warnings and frank blocks including an indef block. You obviously know better than to persist in these games but yet you continue. AGF only extends so far. You clearly have no regard for community guidelines founded on consensus and are only interested in your own editorial decisions. I'm sorry that you decided to take this route. It was a very poor decision on your part. -Thibbs (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, to Derby Stallion (series) is full of unhelpful changes as per WP:NOTBROKEN.  Amalthea  09:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, I see no unhelpful edits. I will not pretend 100% of my edits have been helpful, but ask any average editor and that change is nothing but helpful. And frankly, you shouldnt drive away good editors since fewer and fewer people are editing Wikipedia now. I also notice that I only get hounded when I mass edit articles, I dont get harassed when I only edit a few articles a day.  TJ   Spyke   20:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "It is likewise unhelpful to edit visible links for no reason other than to avoid redirects." Amalthea  22:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A great majority of your NOTBROKEN violations are harmful actually. Try actually reading the guideline. You might be surprised to discover that there are at least six explicitly listed reasons not to change (bypass) redirects. One obvious one is that you are whitewashing usage stats - an activity that is at best completely pointless. But more often it's not completely harmless. It's directly harmful because it obscures the need for new articles on topics that aren't covered and it hides more appropriate and thus needed page-moves.
 * How on earth could these violations be "nothing but helpful"? I can't think of a single way that they help. Correcting incorrect titles or misspelled words or redirect like that is one thing, but how does it help anybody if you change horse breaking to horse training (to take a random example from the Derby Stallion article)? It hides the fact that there is no article on horse breaking - a clearly distinct concept from horse training and it reduces the likelihood that anyone will write an article on horse breaking. In what world does that help in any way whatsoever? At very best it's a completely pointless time-wasting activity. And it's one that you have been warned over and over and over again to stop. Does the consensus of your fellow editor on this issue really matter so little to you that you are unwilling to put an end to this distinctly non-helpful activity? Does the possibility that you may get blocked for a 24th (!!!) time mean nothing to you? I hope I'm not overreacting here, but I find your conduct in this one trivial editorial area to be truly incomprehensible. -Thibbs (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been careful to avoid those types of link changes. How is changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3" doing any harm? There is never gonna be a "Playstation 3" article, ever. And in that Derby Stallion article, changing "PlayStation" to "PlayStation (console)" IS directly helpful and needed because the latter refers to the game system called PlayStation and the former refers to the general product line. Or changing links to "Famicom" to be "Nintendo Entertainment System|Famicom", there will never be a separate Famicom article because it's just the Japanese name of the NES. Sometimes I make mistakes (like with the horse breaking one), but I see it as vandalism when editors revert the whole edit instead of just specific link changes they see as bad.  TJ   Spyke   15:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Look I recognize that apart from this one issue (and I guess the 3RR stuff from your past that I think you've mostly stopped now) you are a good editor. And I also recognize that you're human and that you may make mistakes. But seeing as how you've made so many many mistakes in this one particular area I would seriously recommend avoiding it altogether. Just skimming the cleanups you've performed since you were last unblocked, it's apparent that the large majority of the redirect "fixes" you performed were potentially harmful. And a tiny minority of them are helpful in any way.
 * Is there a reason you feel compelled to change the redirects? I assume it's not just to boost your edit count, right? But is it just because it looks ugly on WPCleaner? Or do you really think that this is somehow helpful? If you do think it is helpful then have you considered making the case to change the guidelines at WP:NOTBROKEN? Because there are only 2 listed exceptions to that guideline currently. I wouldn't say that this is a complete list of all good exceptions, though. Your example of changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3", for instance, seems to me to be correcting a misspelling (or really a mis-capitalization). And I think that this is helpful and that it should be listed as an exception to WP:NOTBROKEN.
 * Why don't you and I try to come up with some exceptions that we could propose to the community together to improve the guidelines so that you're not constantly violating them? If you could come up with a reason why changing "video arcade" to "amusement arcade" or how changing "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System" or how changing "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" helps in any way then you could certainly make that suggestion as well. This would be a much much better way of approaching the problem than just ignoring everyone's warnings and getting banned over and over, don't you think? I'd be willing to help draft some proposed changes if you're willing to engage with me and explain why you feel compelled to violate this guideline. -Thibbs (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me (and withe something like the Dragon Quest, it's because the series name in English was Dragon Warrior before the the Dragon Quest VIII. Amusement arcade and video arcade are essentially interchangeable terms like "pop" and "soda". As for Famicom, aren't we supposed to use English names of products if that is the best known name? Famicom is just the Japanese name of the NES, so I would think other WP policies supported changing them to NES). I've never bothered trying to have NOTBROKEN changed because I know from experience how hard it can be to have policies on Wikipedia changed. Maybe later today or something we can start working on this together to propose changes that seem like common sense to most people.  TJ   Spyke   16:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm encouraged by your attitude. I think we should discuss this thoroughly between us here before proposing anything so that we're clear in our arguments. It's OK if we disagree too, since we can propose changes individually to be accepted piecemeal rather than only as a single package. Anyway here are my thoughts on what you've said just above:
 * Like the term "video arcade", the other two are also examples of synonymous terms: Dragon Warrior is the North American term whereas the English term is actually Dragon Quest (the same is true for all European countries and Japan actually); Famicom is the original Japanese name for the NES. According to NOTBROKEN (point 6), the use of a synonymous redirect term provides useful information relating to usage of the term which can be considered as evidence for renaming the article. By systematically changing these links to the current non-redirect title, you are manipulating the usage statistics. As an example: it might be that the term "Dragon Quest" is better known than "Dragon Warrior", but because you'd have changed all of the "Dragon Quest" redirects into "Dragon Warrior," you would have eradicated this information and we would get a false impression that "Dragon Warrior" was the most commonly used term when in reality it was only the most commonly used because the statistics had been manipulated. If you don't like that example, try imagining the reverse. Imagine someone who called the game "Dragon Quest" trying to make the case that the article should be renamed. So first he would change all the links to redirects and then point to the incoming links as evidence that everyone calls it Dragon Quest. You can see how that would be a problem, right? I think what NOTBROKEN is saying is that it's safest if we rely on the real usage statistics by refraining from changing synonymous terms. They are synonyms, after all, so the meaning is identical, right?
 * But I think you might have a point if your central concern was consistency. There have been large discussions in the past regarding whether or not Wikipedia should preferentially use the term "Sega Genesis" or "Master Drive" for example. I'm sure the same could exist for terms from popular consumer products like "Famicom/NES" or "Dragon Quest/Warrior" as well. If there has been a community discussion where one term was decided as the preferred term then I think you could make the case that perhaps it would be a good idea to use a single term in the interest of consistency. Does that sound like it might be the core of your argument for these words? Or do you instead find a problem with NOTBROKEN's argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics?
 * Another redirect dodge I was hoping you could explain is when you changed "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games". These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN's argument that "Shortcuts or redirects to sections of articles ... should never be bypassed, as the section headings on the page may change over time [and] Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links" (point 4; emphasis and ellipses added). So you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions? -Thibbs (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi TJ Spyke. Just checking in again. What's happening now? Why has this conversation stalled? Have you had a chance to read what I just wrote above? I noticed that you've again resumed with the NOTBROKEN violations (swapping "United States of America" for "United States"). I don't think it's too much to ask that you completely refrain from this kind of edit until we've finished discussing our plans for how to present our argument at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. You are violating the guidelines when you make this kind of edit and you've been asked to stop over and over again. Please help me come up with some exceptions that we can present for consensus instead of just continuing to stubbornly violate the guidelines and hope that I'll go away. I won't. I really want to work with you here, but if I see it again I will bring it to AN/I. -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, I didnt do anything wrong with United States. It's the common name of the country and what everyone writes (hell, even the article uses the name) and I know that did NOT violate any rule. Frankly, saying that deleting two words so it uses the common name is wrong, is like saying you can't edit a article to fix a spelling mistake. Might as well freeze all editing. Did I somehow violate it in another article when I changed Major League Baseball to Major League Baseball ? Anyways, i've been busy. But im free now.  TJ   Spyke   15:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Repairing broken wikilinks is not a violation of NOTBROKEN, but changing from one synonymous term (like the official name of a country) to another synonymous term (like the common name for a country) for the same target article is definitely a violation of NOTBROKEN. I don't mean this to sound rude, but you have to accept the fact that your judgment on whether or not a redirect "fix" violates NOTBROKEN is clearly quite poor. I strongly urge you to avoid making those kinds of edits even if you are certain that you're in the right because you are obviously unable to differentiate between violations and non-violations. Anyway I'm glad to hear that you're free now and I'm eager to get to work on the exceptions. -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding Dragon Warrior/Quest, it is not true that Quest was common in European countries. The first game in the series even RELEASED in Europe was Dragon Warrior Monsters in 1999 (where it used "Warrior"), they didnt get another one until Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King (which was when Square Enix FIRST used the "Quest" name outside of Japan). So considering that for almost 20 years the only English name of the series was "Warrior", it makes sense for the ones released with the Warrior name to use that. As for exceptions to NOTBROKEN:


 * I think fixing spelling mistakes and capitalization (i.e. Playstation to PlayStation) are good ones that are not controversial.
 * Hmmm, maybe switching some to the most common name can be OK (though within the right context)
 * Sometimes things will never get an article. I.e. a character who appeared once on a TV show 20 years ago will probably never get an article as they are not notable enough, but they might have an entry in a article about characters from that show. Is it a problem to change a link to that section specifically?
 * If a product is released under one name in most of the world, shouldn't it be OK to write that as the name? I.e. NES/Famicom. Famicom is the Japanese name of the system, but they are still the same system. Doesn't it make sense to change the links to NES? It's especially ridiculous when some articles say a game was released on the NES and Famicom (implying they are different).

Maybe others, but these are off the top of my head.  TJ   Spyke   15:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All PAL versions of the main series are called "Dragon Quest," but that's quite beside the point. The point is that these are synonymous terms and "fixing" them to avoid the redirect violates NOTBROKEN point #6. Unless there has been a discussion leading to a consistency-based preference for one term over the other, the term used by the first European spinoff title has no significance whatsoever and the redirect should not be altered. But this brings me to the question I asked last week:
 * Is switching "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" (or "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System", etc.) something that you have been doing in the interest of inter-article consistency? Is that the core of your argument? Or do you simply reject NOTBROKEN's point #6 (i.e. the argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics)?
 * And as long as I'm re-asking questions from last week,...
 * Could you explain your thought process behind changing "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games"? These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN point #4 (described in last week's comment above). Do you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions?
 * Regarding your exceptions, I agree strongly with the first one (spelling & capitalization). That's definitely going into the final draft of our proposal. I also think that the alteration of redirect terms to reflect a consistent consensus-based terminology (if indeed such a consensus exists) is a good idea. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
 * The other three points you bring up are kind of confusing for me. I don't really think you've presented any argument for making them into exceptions. Basically your reasoning appears to boil down to "Let's make these into exceptions, because why not?" The problem with this is that NOTBROKEN is a consensus-based guideline. Nobody would take us seriously if we proposed exceptions to it without actually giving concrete reasons why the exceptions are needed. The answer to your "is it a problem?" and "shouldn't it be OK?" questions above would be answered by the editors at NOTBROKEN with "Yes it's a problem (see point #4), and no it's not OK (see point #6)." These are consensus-based views on those exact topics.
 * To create an exception we can't just ignore consensus. We have to find a reason that the consensus view is too broad and that in narrowly definable situations the general rules at NOTBROKEN should be excepted. Then we have to convince others based on solid reasoning. If there is no way to distinguish the area to which the rule applies from the area to which the exception applies then we have to propose knocking down part of the rules which will be a much more difficult task and will absolutely require ironclad arguments, not just "why not?" In addition to answering the questions I bulleted above, could you please try to think of specific reasons why we need (or how it would be helpful to have) an exception for common names, obscure aspects, and synonymous terms? -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again TJ Spyke. What is your schedule like? Are you going to have any free time in the next few weeks? I'd like to move forward with our plans regarding the development of a few more exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN. It's been nearly a month since we began talking about this, but if we're to move this forward we have to actually discuss it. I don't want to do this without your help. In fact most of my interest in getting this done is to help editors like you who seem to have problems with the current guidelines. Is this something that still interests you? When will you be available to answer questions like those I asked in the last post? Please don't just leave me hanging here. -Thibbs (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well while I'm waiting for word from you on some kind of timeframe I noticed that you'd performed a few more redirect "fixes" since I last asked you to stop and I can report that I agree most of them. But edits like this and this suggest further exceptions to the rule. From the first of those two links (relinking to the actual page name on a dab page), I think this brings up a good point - that we should add an exception for disambiguation pages per WP:PIPING. The second one (changing a link to a plural term into a link to the singular) looks like just another "fix" for reasons of your own. Can you explain that change? Was there a reason you decided to again violate NOTBROKEN in that case? For all I know there may be policy/guideline supporting that edit but if so then this suggests another good exception. -Thibbs (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and  claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place and second place  both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 16:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

HELP Keep a Social Media War off Wikipedia
There appears to be a Social Media War that has been brought here to Wikipedia, and negative info is being left on the Michelle Borth page that is not necessary. You came to me a few years ago, explaining the boundaries of Wikipedia. Well it appears that they are being broken on Michelle's page. Any input, feedback would help. This little war/argument has gone too far especially now that is being brought to other sites like Wikipedia. This particular user is claiming I have no right to remove the negative info about Michelle, regardless of whether it is true or not, until it is discussed. I feel that if me and this user attempted to discuss, it will get very heated, and you seem to really know ur way, I'd appreciate it Taker22 (talk) 10:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Continual redirect problems by User:TJ Spyke. Thank you. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 23:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're about to be blocked indefinitely. If I were you I'd be pleading my case at ANI. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Itadaki Street DS JPN.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Itadaki Street DS JPN.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Ashley Fliehr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Providence High School


 * List of acronyms: W (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to WWF


 * Takeshi's Castle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Fuji

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Question about cleanup process
Hi TJ Spyke, I noticed that you've been cleaning up numerous articles today and I was curious how you were doing it. Is it all by hand or do you use a program? Specifically I'm curious how you check the wikilinks. Are you testing each one individually or is there a tool you have that highlights all redirects? -Thibbs (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I use WPCleaner to check articles, but there are some edits that can't be made with it (like spellchecking, typos, etc.), so I then manually edit it after (essentially, I copy and paste the results from WPCleaner, then continue editing the article).  TJ   Spyke   21:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. Is WPCleaner something that you can download from a Wikimedia site/affiliate or should I just Google it if I want to find it? -Thibbs (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here you go: WPCleaner.  TJ   Spyke   21:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm sorry to say I've reverted your edit at the Derby Stallion article yet again. The links that you are "fixing" are indeed redirect links. And per WP:NOTBROKEN, redirects within an article are not supposed to be changed so that they point to the target article instead. There are a number of reasons why this is harmful to Wikipedia and they're clearly spelled out under WP:NOTBROKEN. This has become a problem in the past with users accidentally abusing the Navigation popup tool to "fix" redirects as you're doing and the result was this page. This is actually the reason I was asking above what tool you were using. I was curious to see what other tools were being subjected to this kind of abuse. The WPCleaner talk page is filled with comments regarding users mistakenly "fixing" redirects (e.g. 1, 2, 3, and many more in the archives from 2008 and earlier). The thing is... I've already explained all of this to you in the past (see e.g. 1 and 2). And I know you are aware of this issue because you have already received a final warning on the subject. So I really don't see how what you are doing could be considered good faith editing. Your editing is contrary to the guidelines and you have been repeatedly told this and warned to stop. Normally I'd suggest trying to get the guidelines changed before carrying on in this way, but in this case from your block log it's clear to me that you've consciously decided to change matters unilaterally rather than by seeking consensus. For this reason I've requested administrative action. -Thibbs (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, you did not read NOTBROKEN correctly at all. I have not been making the kinds of edits that got me into trouble before, I have been careful to only makes ones that follow the guidelines. I am sorry that you are not a good editor and dont like others making articles better, but stop vandalizing pages by reverting good edits. I am hesitant to give you a warning, but I will. Frankly, its people like you who are driving editors away from Wikipedia and preventing so many articles from being improved. Go away.  TJ   Spyke   00:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't react like this to new editors. I react this way to editors who have been editing here for 7-odd years and are among the top 400 most prolific editors and who have received a shocking number of warnings and frank blocks including an indef block. You obviously know better than to persist in these games but yet you continue. AGF only extends so far. You clearly have no regard for community guidelines founded on consensus and are only interested in your own editorial decisions. I'm sorry that you decided to take this route. It was a very poor decision on your part. -Thibbs (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, to Derby Stallion (series) is full of unhelpful changes as per WP:NOTBROKEN.  Amalthea  09:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, I see no unhelpful edits. I will not pretend 100% of my edits have been helpful, but ask any average editor and that change is nothing but helpful. And frankly, you shouldnt drive away good editors since fewer and fewer people are editing Wikipedia now. I also notice that I only get hounded when I mass edit articles, I dont get harassed when I only edit a few articles a day.  TJ   Spyke   20:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "It is likewise unhelpful to edit visible links for no reason other than to avoid redirects." Amalthea  22:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A great majority of your NOTBROKEN violations are harmful actually. Try actually reading the guideline. You might be surprised to discover that there are at least six explicitly listed reasons not to change (bypass) redirects. One obvious one is that you are whitewashing usage stats - an activity that is at best completely pointless. But more often it's not completely harmless. It's directly harmful because it obscures the need for new articles on topics that aren't covered and it hides more appropriate and thus needed page-moves.
 * How on earth could these violations be "nothing but helpful"? I can't think of a single way that they help. Correcting incorrect titles or misspelled words or redirect like that is one thing, but how does it help anybody if you change horse breaking to horse training (to take a random example from the Derby Stallion article)? It hides the fact that there is no article on horse breaking - a clearly distinct concept from horse training and it reduces the likelihood that anyone will write an article on horse breaking. In what world does that help in any way whatsoever? At very best it's a completely pointless time-wasting activity. And it's one that you have been warned over and over and over again to stop. Does the consensus of your fellow editor on this issue really matter so little to you that you are unwilling to put an end to this distinctly non-helpful activity? Does the possibility that you may get blocked for a 24th (!!!) time mean nothing to you? I hope I'm not overreacting here, but I find your conduct in this one trivial editorial area to be truly incomprehensible. -Thibbs (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been careful to avoid those types of link changes. How is changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3" doing any harm? There is never gonna be a "Playstation 3" article, ever. And in that Derby Stallion article, changing "PlayStation" to "PlayStation (console)" IS directly helpful and needed because the latter refers to the game system called PlayStation and the former refers to the general product line. Or changing links to "Famicom" to be "Nintendo Entertainment System|Famicom", there will never be a separate Famicom article because it's just the Japanese name of the NES. Sometimes I make mistakes (like with the horse breaking one), but I see it as vandalism when editors revert the whole edit instead of just specific link changes they see as bad.  TJ   Spyke   15:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Look I recognize that apart from this one issue (and I guess the 3RR stuff from your past that I think you've mostly stopped now) you are a good editor. And I also recognize that you're human and that you may make mistakes. But seeing as how you've made so many many mistakes in this one particular area I would seriously recommend avoiding it altogether. Just skimming the cleanups you've performed since you were last unblocked, it's apparent that the large majority of the redirect "fixes" you performed were potentially harmful. And a tiny minority of them are helpful in any way.
 * Is there a reason you feel compelled to change the redirects? I assume it's not just to boost your edit count, right? But is it just because it looks ugly on WPCleaner? Or do you really think that this is somehow helpful? If you do think it is helpful then have you considered making the case to change the guidelines at WP:NOTBROKEN? Because there are only 2 listed exceptions to that guideline currently. I wouldn't say that this is a complete list of all good exceptions, though. Your example of changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3", for instance, seems to me to be correcting a misspelling (or really a mis-capitalization). And I think that this is helpful and that it should be listed as an exception to WP:NOTBROKEN.
 * Why don't you and I try to come up with some exceptions that we could propose to the community together to improve the guidelines so that you're not constantly violating them? If you could come up with a reason why changing "video arcade" to "amusement arcade" or how changing "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System" or how changing "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" helps in any way then you could certainly make that suggestion as well. This would be a much much better way of approaching the problem than just ignoring everyone's warnings and getting banned over and over, don't you think? I'd be willing to help draft some proposed changes if you're willing to engage with me and explain why you feel compelled to violate this guideline. -Thibbs (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me (and withe something like the Dragon Quest, it's because the series name in English was Dragon Warrior before the the Dragon Quest VIII. Amusement arcade and video arcade are essentially interchangeable terms like "pop" and "soda". As for Famicom, aren't we supposed to use English names of products if that is the best known name? Famicom is just the Japanese name of the NES, so I would think other WP policies supported changing them to NES). I've never bothered trying to have NOTBROKEN changed because I know from experience how hard it can be to have policies on Wikipedia changed. Maybe later today or something we can start working on this together to propose changes that seem like common sense to most people.  TJ   Spyke   16:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm encouraged by your attitude. I think we should discuss this thoroughly between us here before proposing anything so that we're clear in our arguments. It's OK if we disagree too, since we can propose changes individually to be accepted piecemeal rather than only as a single package. Anyway here are my thoughts on what you've said just above:
 * Like the term "video arcade", the other two are also examples of synonymous terms: Dragon Warrior is the North American term whereas the English term is actually Dragon Quest (the same is true for all European countries and Japan actually); Famicom is the original Japanese name for the NES. According to NOTBROKEN (point 6), the use of a synonymous redirect term provides useful information relating to usage of the term which can be considered as evidence for renaming the article. By systematically changing these links to the current non-redirect title, you are manipulating the usage statistics. As an example: it might be that the term "Dragon Quest" is better known than "Dragon Warrior", but because you'd have changed all of the "Dragon Quest" redirects into "Dragon Warrior," you would have eradicated this information and we would get a false impression that "Dragon Warrior" was the most commonly used term when in reality it was only the most commonly used because the statistics had been manipulated. If you don't like that example, try imagining the reverse. Imagine someone who called the game "Dragon Quest" trying to make the case that the article should be renamed. So first he would change all the links to redirects and then point to the incoming links as evidence that everyone calls it Dragon Quest. You can see how that would be a problem, right? I think what NOTBROKEN is saying is that it's safest if we rely on the real usage statistics by refraining from changing synonymous terms. They are synonyms, after all, so the meaning is identical, right?
 * But I think you might have a point if your central concern was consistency. There have been large discussions in the past regarding whether or not Wikipedia should preferentially use the term "Sega Genesis" or "Master Drive" for example. I'm sure the same could exist for terms from popular consumer products like "Famicom/NES" or "Dragon Quest/Warrior" as well. If there has been a community discussion where one term was decided as the preferred term then I think you could make the case that perhaps it would be a good idea to use a single term in the interest of consistency. Does that sound like it might be the core of your argument for these words? Or do you instead find a problem with NOTBROKEN's argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics?
 * Another redirect dodge I was hoping you could explain is when you changed "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games". These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN's argument that "Shortcuts or redirects to sections of articles ... should never be bypassed, as the section headings on the page may change over time [and] Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links" (point 4; emphasis and ellipses added). So you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions? -Thibbs (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi TJ Spyke. Just checking in again. What's happening now? Why has this conversation stalled? Have you had a chance to read what I just wrote above? I noticed that you've again resumed with the NOTBROKEN violations (swapping "United States of America" for "United States"). I don't think it's too much to ask that you completely refrain from this kind of edit until we've finished discussing our plans for how to present our argument at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. You are violating the guidelines when you make this kind of edit and you've been asked to stop over and over again. Please help me come up with some exceptions that we can present for consensus instead of just continuing to stubbornly violate the guidelines and hope that I'll go away. I won't. I really want to work with you here, but if I see it again I will bring it to AN/I. -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, I didnt do anything wrong with United States. It's the common name of the country and what everyone writes (hell, even the article uses the name) and I know that did NOT violate any rule. Frankly, saying that deleting two words so it uses the common name is wrong, is like saying you can't edit a article to fix a spelling mistake. Might as well freeze all editing. Did I somehow violate it in another article when I changed Major League Baseball to Major League Baseball ? Anyways, i've been busy. But im free now.  TJ   Spyke   15:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Repairing broken wikilinks is not a violation of NOTBROKEN, but changing from one synonymous term (like the official name of a country) to another synonymous term (like the common name for a country) for the same target article is definitely a violation of NOTBROKEN. I don't mean this to sound rude, but you have to accept the fact that your judgment on whether or not a redirect "fix" violates NOTBROKEN is clearly quite poor. I strongly urge you to avoid making those kinds of edits even if you are certain that you're in the right because you are obviously unable to differentiate between violations and non-violations. Anyway I'm glad to hear that you're free now and I'm eager to get to work on the exceptions. -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding Dragon Warrior/Quest, it is not true that Quest was common in European countries. The first game in the series even RELEASED in Europe was Dragon Warrior Monsters in 1999 (where it used "Warrior"), they didnt get another one until Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King (which was when Square Enix FIRST used the "Quest" name outside of Japan). So considering that for almost 20 years the only English name of the series was "Warrior", it makes sense for the ones released with the Warrior name to use that. As for exceptions to NOTBROKEN:


 * I think fixing spelling mistakes and capitalization (i.e. Playstation to PlayStation) are good ones that are not controversial.
 * Hmmm, maybe switching some to the most common name can be OK (though within the right context)
 * Sometimes things will never get an article. I.e. a character who appeared once on a TV show 20 years ago will probably never get an article as they are not notable enough, but they might have an entry in a article about characters from that show. Is it a problem to change a link to that section specifically?
 * If a product is released under one name in most of the world, shouldn't it be OK to write that as the name? I.e. NES/Famicom. Famicom is the Japanese name of the system, but they are still the same system. Doesn't it make sense to change the links to NES? It's especially ridiculous when some articles say a game was released on the NES and Famicom (implying they are different).

Maybe others, but these are off the top of my head.  TJ   Spyke   15:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All PAL versions of the main series are called "Dragon Quest," but that's quite beside the point. The point is that these are synonymous terms and "fixing" them to avoid the redirect violates NOTBROKEN point #6. Unless there has been a discussion leading to a consistency-based preference for one term over the other, the term used by the first European spinoff title has no significance whatsoever and the redirect should not be altered. But this brings me to the question I asked last week:
 * Is switching "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" (or "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System", etc.) something that you have been doing in the interest of inter-article consistency? Is that the core of your argument? Or do you simply reject NOTBROKEN's point #6 (i.e. the argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics)?
 * And as long as I'm re-asking questions from last week,...
 * Could you explain your thought process behind changing "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games"? These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN point #4 (described in last week's comment above). Do you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions?
 * Regarding your exceptions, I agree strongly with the first one (spelling & capitalization). That's definitely going into the final draft of our proposal. I also think that the alteration of redirect terms to reflect a consistent consensus-based terminology (if indeed such a consensus exists) is a good idea. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
 * The other three points you bring up are kind of confusing for me. I don't really think you've presented any argument for making them into exceptions. Basically your reasoning appears to boil down to "Let's make these into exceptions, because why not?" The problem with this is that NOTBROKEN is a consensus-based guideline. Nobody would take us seriously if we proposed exceptions to it without actually giving concrete reasons why the exceptions are needed. The answer to your "is it a problem?" and "shouldn't it be OK?" questions above would be answered by the editors at NOTBROKEN with "Yes it's a problem (see point #4), and no it's not OK (see point #6)." These are consensus-based views on those exact topics.
 * To create an exception we can't just ignore consensus. We have to find a reason that the consensus view is too broad and that in narrowly definable situations the general rules at NOTBROKEN should be excepted. Then we have to convince others based on solid reasoning. If there is no way to distinguish the area to which the rule applies from the area to which the exception applies then we have to propose knocking down part of the rules which will be a much more difficult task and will absolutely require ironclad arguments, not just "why not?" In addition to answering the questions I bulleted above, could you please try to think of specific reasons why we need (or how it would be helpful to have) an exception for common names, obscure aspects, and synonymous terms? -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again TJ Spyke. What is your schedule like? Are you going to have any free time in the next few weeks? I'd like to move forward with our plans regarding the development of a few more exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN. It's been nearly a month since we began talking about this, but if we're to move this forward we have to actually discuss it. I don't want to do this without your help. In fact most of my interest in getting this done is to help editors like you who seem to have problems with the current guidelines. Is this something that still interests you? When will you be available to answer questions like those I asked in the last post? Please don't just leave me hanging here. -Thibbs (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well while I'm waiting for word from you on some kind of timeframe I noticed that you'd performed a few more redirect "fixes" since I last asked you to stop and I can report that I agree most of them. But edits like this and this suggest further exceptions to the rule. From the first of those two links (relinking to the actual page name on a dab page), I think this brings up a good point - that we should add an exception for disambiguation pages per WP:PIPING. The second one (changing a link to a plural term into a link to the singular) looks like just another "fix" for reasons of your own. Can you explain that change? Was there a reason you decided to again violate NOTBROKEN in that case? For all I know there may be policy/guideline supporting that edit but if so then this suggests another good exception. -Thibbs (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and  claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place and second place  both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 16:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

HELP Keep a Social Media War off Wikipedia
There appears to be a Social Media War that has been brought here to Wikipedia, and negative info is being left on the Michelle Borth page that is not necessary. You came to me a few years ago, explaining the boundaries of Wikipedia. Well it appears that they are being broken on Michelle's page. Any input, feedback would help. This little war/argument has gone too far especially now that is being brought to other sites like Wikipedia. This particular user is claiming I have no right to remove the negative info about Michelle, regardless of whether it is true or not, until it is discussed. I feel that if me and this user attempted to discuss, it will get very heated, and you seem to really know ur way, I'd appreciate it Taker22 (talk) 10:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Continual redirect problems by User:TJ Spyke. Thank you. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 23:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're about to be blocked indefinitely. If I were you I'd be pleading my case at ANI. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Itadaki Street DS JPN.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Itadaki Street DS JPN.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Ashley Fliehr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Providence High School


 * List of acronyms: W (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to WWF


 * Takeshi's Castle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Fuji

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Question about cleanup process
Hi TJ Spyke, I noticed that you've been cleaning up numerous articles today and I was curious how you were doing it. Is it all by hand or do you use a program? Specifically I'm curious how you check the wikilinks. Are you testing each one individually or is there a tool you have that highlights all redirects? -Thibbs (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I use WPCleaner to check articles, but there are some edits that can't be made with it (like spellchecking, typos, etc.), so I then manually edit it after (essentially, I copy and paste the results from WPCleaner, then continue editing the article).  TJ   Spyke   21:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. Is WPCleaner something that you can download from a Wikimedia site/affiliate or should I just Google it if I want to find it? -Thibbs (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here you go: WPCleaner.  TJ   Spyke   21:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm sorry to say I've reverted your edit at the Derby Stallion article yet again. The links that you are "fixing" are indeed redirect links. And per WP:NOTBROKEN, redirects within an article are not supposed to be changed so that they point to the target article instead. There are a number of reasons why this is harmful to Wikipedia and they're clearly spelled out under WP:NOTBROKEN. This has become a problem in the past with users accidentally abusing the Navigation popup tool to "fix" redirects as you're doing and the result was this page. This is actually the reason I was asking above what tool you were using. I was curious to see what other tools were being subjected to this kind of abuse. The WPCleaner talk page is filled with comments regarding users mistakenly "fixing" redirects (e.g. 1, 2, 3, and many more in the archives from 2008 and earlier). The thing is... I've already explained all of this to you in the past (see e.g. 1 and 2). And I know you are aware of this issue because you have already received a final warning on the subject. So I really don't see how what you are doing could be considered good faith editing. Your editing is contrary to the guidelines and you have been repeatedly told this and warned to stop. Normally I'd suggest trying to get the guidelines changed before carrying on in this way, but in this case from your block log it's clear to me that you've consciously decided to change matters unilaterally rather than by seeking consensus. For this reason I've requested administrative action. -Thibbs (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, you did not read NOTBROKEN correctly at all. I have not been making the kinds of edits that got me into trouble before, I have been careful to only makes ones that follow the guidelines. I am sorry that you are not a good editor and dont like others making articles better, but stop vandalizing pages by reverting good edits. I am hesitant to give you a warning, but I will. Frankly, its people like you who are driving editors away from Wikipedia and preventing so many articles from being improved. Go away.  TJ   Spyke   00:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't react like this to new editors. I react this way to editors who have been editing here for 7-odd years and are among the top 400 most prolific editors and who have received a shocking number of warnings and frank blocks including an indef block. You obviously know better than to persist in these games but yet you continue. AGF only extends so far. You clearly have no regard for community guidelines founded on consensus and are only interested in your own editorial decisions. I'm sorry that you decided to take this route. It was a very poor decision on your part. -Thibbs (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, to Derby Stallion (series) is full of unhelpful changes as per WP:NOTBROKEN.  Amalthea  09:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, I see no unhelpful edits. I will not pretend 100% of my edits have been helpful, but ask any average editor and that change is nothing but helpful. And frankly, you shouldnt drive away good editors since fewer and fewer people are editing Wikipedia now. I also notice that I only get hounded when I mass edit articles, I dont get harassed when I only edit a few articles a day.  TJ   Spyke   20:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "It is likewise unhelpful to edit visible links for no reason other than to avoid redirects." Amalthea  22:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A great majority of your NOTBROKEN violations are harmful actually. Try actually reading the guideline. You might be surprised to discover that there are at least six explicitly listed reasons not to change (bypass) redirects. One obvious one is that you are whitewashing usage stats - an activity that is at best completely pointless. But more often it's not completely harmless. It's directly harmful because it obscures the need for new articles on topics that aren't covered and it hides more appropriate and thus needed page-moves.
 * How on earth could these violations be "nothing but helpful"? I can't think of a single way that they help. Correcting incorrect titles or misspelled words or redirect like that is one thing, but how does it help anybody if you change horse breaking to horse training (to take a random example from the Derby Stallion article)? It hides the fact that there is no article on horse breaking - a clearly distinct concept from horse training and it reduces the likelihood that anyone will write an article on horse breaking. In what world does that help in any way whatsoever? At very best it's a completely pointless time-wasting activity. And it's one that you have been warned over and over and over again to stop. Does the consensus of your fellow editor on this issue really matter so little to you that you are unwilling to put an end to this distinctly non-helpful activity? Does the possibility that you may get blocked for a 24th (!!!) time mean nothing to you? I hope I'm not overreacting here, but I find your conduct in this one trivial editorial area to be truly incomprehensible. -Thibbs (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been careful to avoid those types of link changes. How is changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3" doing any harm? There is never gonna be a "Playstation 3" article, ever. And in that Derby Stallion article, changing "PlayStation" to "PlayStation (console)" IS directly helpful and needed because the latter refers to the game system called PlayStation and the former refers to the general product line. Or changing links to "Famicom" to be "Nintendo Entertainment System|Famicom", there will never be a separate Famicom article because it's just the Japanese name of the NES. Sometimes I make mistakes (like with the horse breaking one), but I see it as vandalism when editors revert the whole edit instead of just specific link changes they see as bad.  TJ   Spyke   15:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Look I recognize that apart from this one issue (and I guess the 3RR stuff from your past that I think you've mostly stopped now) you are a good editor. And I also recognize that you're human and that you may make mistakes. But seeing as how you've made so many many mistakes in this one particular area I would seriously recommend avoiding it altogether. Just skimming the cleanups you've performed since you were last unblocked, it's apparent that the large majority of the redirect "fixes" you performed were potentially harmful. And a tiny minority of them are helpful in any way.
 * Is there a reason you feel compelled to change the redirects? I assume it's not just to boost your edit count, right? But is it just because it looks ugly on WPCleaner? Or do you really think that this is somehow helpful? If you do think it is helpful then have you considered making the case to change the guidelines at WP:NOTBROKEN? Because there are only 2 listed exceptions to that guideline currently. I wouldn't say that this is a complete list of all good exceptions, though. Your example of changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3", for instance, seems to me to be correcting a misspelling (or really a mis-capitalization). And I think that this is helpful and that it should be listed as an exception to WP:NOTBROKEN.
 * Why don't you and I try to come up with some exceptions that we could propose to the community together to improve the guidelines so that you're not constantly violating them? If you could come up with a reason why changing "video arcade" to "amusement arcade" or how changing "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System" or how changing "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" helps in any way then you could certainly make that suggestion as well. This would be a much much better way of approaching the problem than just ignoring everyone's warnings and getting banned over and over, don't you think? I'd be willing to help draft some proposed changes if you're willing to engage with me and explain why you feel compelled to violate this guideline. -Thibbs (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me (and withe something like the Dragon Quest, it's because the series name in English was Dragon Warrior before the the Dragon Quest VIII. Amusement arcade and video arcade are essentially interchangeable terms like "pop" and "soda". As for Famicom, aren't we supposed to use English names of products if that is the best known name? Famicom is just the Japanese name of the NES, so I would think other WP policies supported changing them to NES). I've never bothered trying to have NOTBROKEN changed because I know from experience how hard it can be to have policies on Wikipedia changed. Maybe later today or something we can start working on this together to propose changes that seem like common sense to most people.  TJ   Spyke   16:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm encouraged by your attitude. I think we should discuss this thoroughly between us here before proposing anything so that we're clear in our arguments. It's OK if we disagree too, since we can propose changes individually to be accepted piecemeal rather than only as a single package. Anyway here are my thoughts on what you've said just above:
 * Like the term "video arcade", the other two are also examples of synonymous terms: Dragon Warrior is the North American term whereas the English term is actually Dragon Quest (the same is true for all European countries and Japan actually); Famicom is the original Japanese name for the NES. According to NOTBROKEN (point 6), the use of a synonymous redirect term provides useful information relating to usage of the term which can be considered as evidence for renaming the article. By systematically changing these links to the current non-redirect title, you are manipulating the usage statistics. As an example: it might be that the term "Dragon Quest" is better known than "Dragon Warrior", but because you'd have changed all of the "Dragon Quest" redirects into "Dragon Warrior," you would have eradicated this information and we would get a false impression that "Dragon Warrior" was the most commonly used term when in reality it was only the most commonly used because the statistics had been manipulated. If you don't like that example, try imagining the reverse. Imagine someone who called the game "Dragon Quest" trying to make the case that the article should be renamed. So first he would change all the links to redirects and then point to the incoming links as evidence that everyone calls it Dragon Quest. You can see how that would be a problem, right? I think what NOTBROKEN is saying is that it's safest if we rely on the real usage statistics by refraining from changing synonymous terms. They are synonyms, after all, so the meaning is identical, right?
 * But I think you might have a point if your central concern was consistency. There have been large discussions in the past regarding whether or not Wikipedia should preferentially use the term "Sega Genesis" or "Master Drive" for example. I'm sure the same could exist for terms from popular consumer products like "Famicom/NES" or "Dragon Quest/Warrior" as well. If there has been a community discussion where one term was decided as the preferred term then I think you could make the case that perhaps it would be a good idea to use a single term in the interest of consistency. Does that sound like it might be the core of your argument for these words? Or do you instead find a problem with NOTBROKEN's argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics?
 * Another redirect dodge I was hoping you could explain is when you changed "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games". These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN's argument that "Shortcuts or redirects to sections of articles ... should never be bypassed, as the section headings on the page may change over time [and] Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links" (point 4; emphasis and ellipses added). So you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions? -Thibbs (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi TJ Spyke. Just checking in again. What's happening now? Why has this conversation stalled? Have you had a chance to read what I just wrote above? I noticed that you've again resumed with the NOTBROKEN violations (swapping "United States of America" for "United States"). I don't think it's too much to ask that you completely refrain from this kind of edit until we've finished discussing our plans for how to present our argument at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. You are violating the guidelines when you make this kind of edit and you've been asked to stop over and over again. Please help me come up with some exceptions that we can present for consensus instead of just continuing to stubbornly violate the guidelines and hope that I'll go away. I won't. I really want to work with you here, but if I see it again I will bring it to AN/I. -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, I didnt do anything wrong with United States. It's the common name of the country and what everyone writes (hell, even the article uses the name) and I know that did NOT violate any rule. Frankly, saying that deleting two words so it uses the common name is wrong, is like saying you can't edit a article to fix a spelling mistake. Might as well freeze all editing. Did I somehow violate it in another article when I changed Major League Baseball to Major League Baseball ? Anyways, i've been busy. But im free now.  TJ   Spyke   15:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Repairing broken wikilinks is not a violation of NOTBROKEN, but changing from one synonymous term (like the official name of a country) to another synonymous term (like the common name for a country) for the same target article is definitely a violation of NOTBROKEN. I don't mean this to sound rude, but you have to accept the fact that your judgment on whether or not a redirect "fix" violates NOTBROKEN is clearly quite poor. I strongly urge you to avoid making those kinds of edits even if you are certain that you're in the right because you are obviously unable to differentiate between violations and non-violations. Anyway I'm glad to hear that you're free now and I'm eager to get to work on the exceptions. -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding Dragon Warrior/Quest, it is not true that Quest was common in European countries. The first game in the series even RELEASED in Europe was Dragon Warrior Monsters in 1999 (where it used "Warrior"), they didnt get another one until Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King (which was when Square Enix FIRST used the "Quest" name outside of Japan). So considering that for almost 20 years the only English name of the series was "Warrior", it makes sense for the ones released with the Warrior name to use that. As for exceptions to NOTBROKEN:


 * I think fixing spelling mistakes and capitalization (i.e. Playstation to PlayStation) are good ones that are not controversial.
 * Hmmm, maybe switching some to the most common name can be OK (though within the right context)
 * Sometimes things will never get an article. I.e. a character who appeared once on a TV show 20 years ago will probably never get an article as they are not notable enough, but they might have an entry in a article about characters from that show. Is it a problem to change a link to that section specifically?
 * If a product is released under one name in most of the world, shouldn't it be OK to write that as the name? I.e. NES/Famicom. Famicom is the Japanese name of the system, but they are still the same system. Doesn't it make sense to change the links to NES? It's especially ridiculous when some articles say a game was released on the NES and Famicom (implying they are different).

Maybe others, but these are off the top of my head.  TJ   Spyke   15:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All PAL versions of the main series are called "Dragon Quest," but that's quite beside the point. The point is that these are synonymous terms and "fixing" them to avoid the redirect violates NOTBROKEN point #6. Unless there has been a discussion leading to a consistency-based preference for one term over the other, the term used by the first European spinoff title has no significance whatsoever and the redirect should not be altered. But this brings me to the question I asked last week:
 * Is switching "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" (or "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System", etc.) something that you have been doing in the interest of inter-article consistency? Is that the core of your argument? Or do you simply reject NOTBROKEN's point #6 (i.e. the argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics)?
 * And as long as I'm re-asking questions from last week,...
 * Could you explain your thought process behind changing "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games"? These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN point #4 (described in last week's comment above). Do you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions?
 * Regarding your exceptions, I agree strongly with the first one (spelling & capitalization). That's definitely going into the final draft of our proposal. I also think that the alteration of redirect terms to reflect a consistent consensus-based terminology (if indeed such a consensus exists) is a good idea. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
 * The other three points you bring up are kind of confusing for me. I don't really think you've presented any argument for making them into exceptions. Basically your reasoning appears to boil down to "Let's make these into exceptions, because why not?" The problem with this is that NOTBROKEN is a consensus-based guideline. Nobody would take us seriously if we proposed exceptions to it without actually giving concrete reasons why the exceptions are needed. The answer to your "is it a problem?" and "shouldn't it be OK?" questions above would be answered by the editors at NOTBROKEN with "Yes it's a problem (see point #4), and no it's not OK (see point #6)." These are consensus-based views on those exact topics.
 * To create an exception we can't just ignore consensus. We have to find a reason that the consensus view is too broad and that in narrowly definable situations the general rules at NOTBROKEN should be excepted. Then we have to convince others based on solid reasoning. If there is no way to distinguish the area to which the rule applies from the area to which the exception applies then we have to propose knocking down part of the rules which will be a much more difficult task and will absolutely require ironclad arguments, not just "why not?" In addition to answering the questions I bulleted above, could you please try to think of specific reasons why we need (or how it would be helpful to have) an exception for common names, obscure aspects, and synonymous terms? -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again TJ Spyke. What is your schedule like? Are you going to have any free time in the next few weeks? I'd like to move forward with our plans regarding the development of a few more exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN. It's been nearly a month since we began talking about this, but if we're to move this forward we have to actually discuss it. I don't want to do this without your help. In fact most of my interest in getting this done is to help editors like you who seem to have problems with the current guidelines. Is this something that still interests you? When will you be available to answer questions like those I asked in the last post? Please don't just leave me hanging here. -Thibbs (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well while I'm waiting for word from you on some kind of timeframe I noticed that you'd performed a few more redirect "fixes" since I last asked you to stop and I can report that I agree most of them. But edits like this and this suggest further exceptions to the rule. From the first of those two links (relinking to the actual page name on a dab page), I think this brings up a good point - that we should add an exception for disambiguation pages per WP:PIPING. The second one (changing a link to a plural term into a link to the singular) looks like just another "fix" for reasons of your own. Can you explain that change? Was there a reason you decided to again violate NOTBROKEN in that case? For all I know there may be policy/guideline supporting that edit but if so then this suggests another good exception. -Thibbs (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and  claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place and second place  both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 16:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

HELP Keep a Social Media War off Wikipedia
There appears to be a Social Media War that has been brought here to Wikipedia, and negative info is being left on the Michelle Borth page that is not necessary. You came to me a few years ago, explaining the boundaries of Wikipedia. Well it appears that they are being broken on Michelle's page. Any input, feedback would help. This little war/argument has gone too far especially now that is being brought to other sites like Wikipedia. This particular user is claiming I have no right to remove the negative info about Michelle, regardless of whether it is true or not, until it is discussed. I feel that if me and this user attempted to discuss, it will get very heated, and you seem to really know ur way, I'd appreciate it Taker22 (talk) 10:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Continual redirect problems by User:TJ Spyke. Thank you. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 23:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're about to be blocked indefinitely. If I were you I'd be pleading my case at ANI. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Itadaki Street DS JPN.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Itadaki Street DS JPN.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Ashley Fliehr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Providence High School


 * List of acronyms: W (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to WWF


 * Takeshi's Castle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Fuji

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Question about cleanup process
Hi TJ Spyke, I noticed that you've been cleaning up numerous articles today and I was curious how you were doing it. Is it all by hand or do you use a program? Specifically I'm curious how you check the wikilinks. Are you testing each one individually or is there a tool you have that highlights all redirects? -Thibbs (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I use WPCleaner to check articles, but there are some edits that can't be made with it (like spellchecking, typos, etc.), so I then manually edit it after (essentially, I copy and paste the results from WPCleaner, then continue editing the article).  TJ   Spyke   21:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. Is WPCleaner something that you can download from a Wikimedia site/affiliate or should I just Google it if I want to find it? -Thibbs (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here you go: WPCleaner.  TJ   Spyke   21:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm sorry to say I've reverted your edit at the Derby Stallion article yet again. The links that you are "fixing" are indeed redirect links. And per WP:NOTBROKEN, redirects within an article are not supposed to be changed so that they point to the target article instead. There are a number of reasons why this is harmful to Wikipedia and they're clearly spelled out under WP:NOTBROKEN. This has become a problem in the past with users accidentally abusing the Navigation popup tool to "fix" redirects as you're doing and the result was this page. This is actually the reason I was asking above what tool you were using. I was curious to see what other tools were being subjected to this kind of abuse. The WPCleaner talk page is filled with comments regarding users mistakenly "fixing" redirects (e.g. 1, 2, 3, and many more in the archives from 2008 and earlier). The thing is... I've already explained all of this to you in the past (see e.g. 1 and 2). And I know you are aware of this issue because you have already received a final warning on the subject. So I really don't see how what you are doing could be considered good faith editing. Your editing is contrary to the guidelines and you have been repeatedly told this and warned to stop. Normally I'd suggest trying to get the guidelines changed before carrying on in this way, but in this case from your block log it's clear to me that you've consciously decided to change matters unilaterally rather than by seeking consensus. For this reason I've requested administrative action. -Thibbs (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, you did not read NOTBROKEN correctly at all. I have not been making the kinds of edits that got me into trouble before, I have been careful to only makes ones that follow the guidelines. I am sorry that you are not a good editor and dont like others making articles better, but stop vandalizing pages by reverting good edits. I am hesitant to give you a warning, but I will. Frankly, its people like you who are driving editors away from Wikipedia and preventing so many articles from being improved. Go away.  TJ   Spyke   00:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't react like this to new editors. I react this way to editors who have been editing here for 7-odd years and are among the top 400 most prolific editors and who have received a shocking number of warnings and frank blocks including an indef block. You obviously know better than to persist in these games but yet you continue. AGF only extends so far. You clearly have no regard for community guidelines founded on consensus and are only interested in your own editorial decisions. I'm sorry that you decided to take this route. It was a very poor decision on your part. -Thibbs (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, to Derby Stallion (series) is full of unhelpful changes as per WP:NOTBROKEN.  Amalthea  09:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, I see no unhelpful edits. I will not pretend 100% of my edits have been helpful, but ask any average editor and that change is nothing but helpful. And frankly, you shouldnt drive away good editors since fewer and fewer people are editing Wikipedia now. I also notice that I only get hounded when I mass edit articles, I dont get harassed when I only edit a few articles a day.  TJ   Spyke   20:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "It is likewise unhelpful to edit visible links for no reason other than to avoid redirects." Amalthea  22:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A great majority of your NOTBROKEN violations are harmful actually. Try actually reading the guideline. You might be surprised to discover that there are at least six explicitly listed reasons not to change (bypass) redirects. One obvious one is that you are whitewashing usage stats - an activity that is at best completely pointless. But more often it's not completely harmless. It's directly harmful because it obscures the need for new articles on topics that aren't covered and it hides more appropriate and thus needed page-moves.
 * How on earth could these violations be "nothing but helpful"? I can't think of a single way that they help. Correcting incorrect titles or misspelled words or redirect like that is one thing, but how does it help anybody if you change horse breaking to horse training (to take a random example from the Derby Stallion article)? It hides the fact that there is no article on horse breaking - a clearly distinct concept from horse training and it reduces the likelihood that anyone will write an article on horse breaking. In what world does that help in any way whatsoever? At very best it's a completely pointless time-wasting activity. And it's one that you have been warned over and over and over again to stop. Does the consensus of your fellow editor on this issue really matter so little to you that you are unwilling to put an end to this distinctly non-helpful activity? Does the possibility that you may get blocked for a 24th (!!!) time mean nothing to you? I hope I'm not overreacting here, but I find your conduct in this one trivial editorial area to be truly incomprehensible. -Thibbs (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been careful to avoid those types of link changes. How is changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3" doing any harm? There is never gonna be a "Playstation 3" article, ever. And in that Derby Stallion article, changing "PlayStation" to "PlayStation (console)" IS directly helpful and needed because the latter refers to the game system called PlayStation and the former refers to the general product line. Or changing links to "Famicom" to be "Nintendo Entertainment System|Famicom", there will never be a separate Famicom article because it's just the Japanese name of the NES. Sometimes I make mistakes (like with the horse breaking one), but I see it as vandalism when editors revert the whole edit instead of just specific link changes they see as bad.  TJ   Spyke   15:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Look I recognize that apart from this one issue (and I guess the 3RR stuff from your past that I think you've mostly stopped now) you are a good editor. And I also recognize that you're human and that you may make mistakes. But seeing as how you've made so many many mistakes in this one particular area I would seriously recommend avoiding it altogether. Just skimming the cleanups you've performed since you were last unblocked, it's apparent that the large majority of the redirect "fixes" you performed were potentially harmful. And a tiny minority of them are helpful in any way.
 * Is there a reason you feel compelled to change the redirects? I assume it's not just to boost your edit count, right? But is it just because it looks ugly on WPCleaner? Or do you really think that this is somehow helpful? If you do think it is helpful then have you considered making the case to change the guidelines at WP:NOTBROKEN? Because there are only 2 listed exceptions to that guideline currently. I wouldn't say that this is a complete list of all good exceptions, though. Your example of changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3", for instance, seems to me to be correcting a misspelling (or really a mis-capitalization). And I think that this is helpful and that it should be listed as an exception to WP:NOTBROKEN.
 * Why don't you and I try to come up with some exceptions that we could propose to the community together to improve the guidelines so that you're not constantly violating them? If you could come up with a reason why changing "video arcade" to "amusement arcade" or how changing "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System" or how changing "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" helps in any way then you could certainly make that suggestion as well. This would be a much much better way of approaching the problem than just ignoring everyone's warnings and getting banned over and over, don't you think? I'd be willing to help draft some proposed changes if you're willing to engage with me and explain why you feel compelled to violate this guideline. -Thibbs (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me (and withe something like the Dragon Quest, it's because the series name in English was Dragon Warrior before the the Dragon Quest VIII. Amusement arcade and video arcade are essentially interchangeable terms like "pop" and "soda". As for Famicom, aren't we supposed to use English names of products if that is the best known name? Famicom is just the Japanese name of the NES, so I would think other WP policies supported changing them to NES). I've never bothered trying to have NOTBROKEN changed because I know from experience how hard it can be to have policies on Wikipedia changed. Maybe later today or something we can start working on this together to propose changes that seem like common sense to most people.  TJ   Spyke   16:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm encouraged by your attitude. I think we should discuss this thoroughly between us here before proposing anything so that we're clear in our arguments. It's OK if we disagree too, since we can propose changes individually to be accepted piecemeal rather than only as a single package. Anyway here are my thoughts on what you've said just above:
 * Like the term "video arcade", the other two are also examples of synonymous terms: Dragon Warrior is the North American term whereas the English term is actually Dragon Quest (the same is true for all European countries and Japan actually); Famicom is the original Japanese name for the NES. According to NOTBROKEN (point 6), the use of a synonymous redirect term provides useful information relating to usage of the term which can be considered as evidence for renaming the article. By systematically changing these links to the current non-redirect title, you are manipulating the usage statistics. As an example: it might be that the term "Dragon Quest" is better known than "Dragon Warrior", but because you'd have changed all of the "Dragon Quest" redirects into "Dragon Warrior," you would have eradicated this information and we would get a false impression that "Dragon Warrior" was the most commonly used term when in reality it was only the most commonly used because the statistics had been manipulated. If you don't like that example, try imagining the reverse. Imagine someone who called the game "Dragon Quest" trying to make the case that the article should be renamed. So first he would change all the links to redirects and then point to the incoming links as evidence that everyone calls it Dragon Quest. You can see how that would be a problem, right? I think what NOTBROKEN is saying is that it's safest if we rely on the real usage statistics by refraining from changing synonymous terms. They are synonyms, after all, so the meaning is identical, right?
 * But I think you might have a point if your central concern was consistency. There have been large discussions in the past regarding whether or not Wikipedia should preferentially use the term "Sega Genesis" or "Master Drive" for example. I'm sure the same could exist for terms from popular consumer products like "Famicom/NES" or "Dragon Quest/Warrior" as well. If there has been a community discussion where one term was decided as the preferred term then I think you could make the case that perhaps it would be a good idea to use a single term in the interest of consistency. Does that sound like it might be the core of your argument for these words? Or do you instead find a problem with NOTBROKEN's argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics?
 * Another redirect dodge I was hoping you could explain is when you changed "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games". These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN's argument that "Shortcuts or redirects to sections of articles ... should never be bypassed, as the section headings on the page may change over time [and] Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links" (point 4; emphasis and ellipses added). So you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions? -Thibbs (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi TJ Spyke. Just checking in again. What's happening now? Why has this conversation stalled? Have you had a chance to read what I just wrote above? I noticed that you've again resumed with the NOTBROKEN violations (swapping "United States of America" for "United States"). I don't think it's too much to ask that you completely refrain from this kind of edit until we've finished discussing our plans for how to present our argument at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. You are violating the guidelines when you make this kind of edit and you've been asked to stop over and over again. Please help me come up with some exceptions that we can present for consensus instead of just continuing to stubbornly violate the guidelines and hope that I'll go away. I won't. I really want to work with you here, but if I see it again I will bring it to AN/I. -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, I didnt do anything wrong with United States. It's the common name of the country and what everyone writes (hell, even the article uses the name) and I know that did NOT violate any rule. Frankly, saying that deleting two words so it uses the common name is wrong, is like saying you can't edit a article to fix a spelling mistake. Might as well freeze all editing. Did I somehow violate it in another article when I changed Major League Baseball to Major League Baseball ? Anyways, i've been busy. But im free now.  TJ   Spyke   15:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Repairing broken wikilinks is not a violation of NOTBROKEN, but changing from one synonymous term (like the official name of a country) to another synonymous term (like the common name for a country) for the same target article is definitely a violation of NOTBROKEN. I don't mean this to sound rude, but you have to accept the fact that your judgment on whether or not a redirect "fix" violates NOTBROKEN is clearly quite poor. I strongly urge you to avoid making those kinds of edits even if you are certain that you're in the right because you are obviously unable to differentiate between violations and non-violations. Anyway I'm glad to hear that you're free now and I'm eager to get to work on the exceptions. -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding Dragon Warrior/Quest, it is not true that Quest was common in European countries. The first game in the series even RELEASED in Europe was Dragon Warrior Monsters in 1999 (where it used "Warrior"), they didnt get another one until Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King (which was when Square Enix FIRST used the "Quest" name outside of Japan). So considering that for almost 20 years the only English name of the series was "Warrior", it makes sense for the ones released with the Warrior name to use that. As for exceptions to NOTBROKEN:


 * I think fixing spelling mistakes and capitalization (i.e. Playstation to PlayStation) are good ones that are not controversial.
 * Hmmm, maybe switching some to the most common name can be OK (though within the right context)
 * Sometimes things will never get an article. I.e. a character who appeared once on a TV show 20 years ago will probably never get an article as they are not notable enough, but they might have an entry in a article about characters from that show. Is it a problem to change a link to that section specifically?
 * If a product is released under one name in most of the world, shouldn't it be OK to write that as the name? I.e. NES/Famicom. Famicom is the Japanese name of the system, but they are still the same system. Doesn't it make sense to change the links to NES? It's especially ridiculous when some articles say a game was released on the NES and Famicom (implying they are different).

Maybe others, but these are off the top of my head.  TJ   Spyke   15:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All PAL versions of the main series are called "Dragon Quest," but that's quite beside the point. The point is that these are synonymous terms and "fixing" them to avoid the redirect violates NOTBROKEN point #6. Unless there has been a discussion leading to a consistency-based preference for one term over the other, the term used by the first European spinoff title has no significance whatsoever and the redirect should not be altered. But this brings me to the question I asked last week:
 * Is switching "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" (or "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System", etc.) something that you have been doing in the interest of inter-article consistency? Is that the core of your argument? Or do you simply reject NOTBROKEN's point #6 (i.e. the argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics)?
 * And as long as I'm re-asking questions from last week,...
 * Could you explain your thought process behind changing "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games"? These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN point #4 (described in last week's comment above). Do you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions?
 * Regarding your exceptions, I agree strongly with the first one (spelling & capitalization). That's definitely going into the final draft of our proposal. I also think that the alteration of redirect terms to reflect a consistent consensus-based terminology (if indeed such a consensus exists) is a good idea. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
 * The other three points you bring up are kind of confusing for me. I don't really think you've presented any argument for making them into exceptions. Basically your reasoning appears to boil down to "Let's make these into exceptions, because why not?" The problem with this is that NOTBROKEN is a consensus-based guideline. Nobody would take us seriously if we proposed exceptions to it without actually giving concrete reasons why the exceptions are needed. The answer to your "is it a problem?" and "shouldn't it be OK?" questions above would be answered by the editors at NOTBROKEN with "Yes it's a problem (see point #4), and no it's not OK (see point #6)." These are consensus-based views on those exact topics.
 * To create an exception we can't just ignore consensus. We have to find a reason that the consensus view is too broad and that in narrowly definable situations the general rules at NOTBROKEN should be excepted. Then we have to convince others based on solid reasoning. If there is no way to distinguish the area to which the rule applies from the area to which the exception applies then we have to propose knocking down part of the rules which will be a much more difficult task and will absolutely require ironclad arguments, not just "why not?" In addition to answering the questions I bulleted above, could you please try to think of specific reasons why we need (or how it would be helpful to have) an exception for common names, obscure aspects, and synonymous terms? -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again TJ Spyke. What is your schedule like? Are you going to have any free time in the next few weeks? I'd like to move forward with our plans regarding the development of a few more exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN. It's been nearly a month since we began talking about this, but if we're to move this forward we have to actually discuss it. I don't want to do this without your help. In fact most of my interest in getting this done is to help editors like you who seem to have problems with the current guidelines. Is this something that still interests you? When will you be available to answer questions like those I asked in the last post? Please don't just leave me hanging here. -Thibbs (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well while I'm waiting for word from you on some kind of timeframe I noticed that you'd performed a few more redirect "fixes" since I last asked you to stop and I can report that I agree most of them. But edits like this and this suggest further exceptions to the rule. From the first of those two links (relinking to the actual page name on a dab page), I think this brings up a good point - that we should add an exception for disambiguation pages per WP:PIPING. The second one (changing a link to a plural term into a link to the singular) looks like just another "fix" for reasons of your own. Can you explain that change? Was there a reason you decided to again violate NOTBROKEN in that case? For all I know there may be policy/guideline supporting that edit but if so then this suggests another good exception. -Thibbs (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and  claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place and second place  both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 16:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

HELP Keep a Social Media War off Wikipedia
There appears to be a Social Media War that has been brought here to Wikipedia, and negative info is being left on the Michelle Borth page that is not necessary. You came to me a few years ago, explaining the boundaries of Wikipedia. Well it appears that they are being broken on Michelle's page. Any input, feedback would help. This little war/argument has gone too far especially now that is being brought to other sites like Wikipedia. This particular user is claiming I have no right to remove the negative info about Michelle, regardless of whether it is true or not, until it is discussed. I feel that if me and this user attempted to discuss, it will get very heated, and you seem to really know ur way, I'd appreciate it Taker22 (talk) 10:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Continual redirect problems by User:TJ Spyke. Thank you. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 23:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're about to be blocked indefinitely. If I were you I'd be pleading my case at ANI. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Itadaki Street DS JPN.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Itadaki Street DS JPN.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Ashley Fliehr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Providence High School


 * List of acronyms: W (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to WWF


 * Takeshi's Castle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Fuji

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Question about cleanup process
Hi TJ Spyke, I noticed that you've been cleaning up numerous articles today and I was curious how you were doing it. Is it all by hand or do you use a program? Specifically I'm curious how you check the wikilinks. Are you testing each one individually or is there a tool you have that highlights all redirects? -Thibbs (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I use WPCleaner to check articles, but there are some edits that can't be made with it (like spellchecking, typos, etc.), so I then manually edit it after (essentially, I copy and paste the results from WPCleaner, then continue editing the article).  TJ   Spyke   21:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. Is WPCleaner something that you can download from a Wikimedia site/affiliate or should I just Google it if I want to find it? -Thibbs (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here you go: WPCleaner.  TJ   Spyke   21:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm sorry to say I've reverted your edit at the Derby Stallion article yet again. The links that you are "fixing" are indeed redirect links. And per WP:NOTBROKEN, redirects within an article are not supposed to be changed so that they point to the target article instead. There are a number of reasons why this is harmful to Wikipedia and they're clearly spelled out under WP:NOTBROKEN. This has become a problem in the past with users accidentally abusing the Navigation popup tool to "fix" redirects as you're doing and the result was this page. This is actually the reason I was asking above what tool you were using. I was curious to see what other tools were being subjected to this kind of abuse. The WPCleaner talk page is filled with comments regarding users mistakenly "fixing" redirects (e.g. 1, 2, 3, and many more in the archives from 2008 and earlier). The thing is... I've already explained all of this to you in the past (see e.g. 1 and 2). And I know you are aware of this issue because you have already received a final warning on the subject. So I really don't see how what you are doing could be considered good faith editing. Your editing is contrary to the guidelines and you have been repeatedly told this and warned to stop. Normally I'd suggest trying to get the guidelines changed before carrying on in this way, but in this case from your block log it's clear to me that you've consciously decided to change matters unilaterally rather than by seeking consensus. For this reason I've requested administrative action. -Thibbs (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, you did not read NOTBROKEN correctly at all. I have not been making the kinds of edits that got me into trouble before, I have been careful to only makes ones that follow the guidelines. I am sorry that you are not a good editor and dont like others making articles better, but stop vandalizing pages by reverting good edits. I am hesitant to give you a warning, but I will. Frankly, its people like you who are driving editors away from Wikipedia and preventing so many articles from being improved. Go away.  TJ   Spyke   00:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't react like this to new editors. I react this way to editors who have been editing here for 7-odd years and are among the top 400 most prolific editors and who have received a shocking number of warnings and frank blocks including an indef block. You obviously know better than to persist in these games but yet you continue. AGF only extends so far. You clearly have no regard for community guidelines founded on consensus and are only interested in your own editorial decisions. I'm sorry that you decided to take this route. It was a very poor decision on your part. -Thibbs (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, to Derby Stallion (series) is full of unhelpful changes as per WP:NOTBROKEN.  Amalthea  09:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, I see no unhelpful edits. I will not pretend 100% of my edits have been helpful, but ask any average editor and that change is nothing but helpful. And frankly, you shouldnt drive away good editors since fewer and fewer people are editing Wikipedia now. I also notice that I only get hounded when I mass edit articles, I dont get harassed when I only edit a few articles a day.  TJ   Spyke   20:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "It is likewise unhelpful to edit visible links for no reason other than to avoid redirects." Amalthea  22:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A great majority of your NOTBROKEN violations are harmful actually. Try actually reading the guideline. You might be surprised to discover that there are at least six explicitly listed reasons not to change (bypass) redirects. One obvious one is that you are whitewashing usage stats - an activity that is at best completely pointless. But more often it's not completely harmless. It's directly harmful because it obscures the need for new articles on topics that aren't covered and it hides more appropriate and thus needed page-moves.
 * How on earth could these violations be "nothing but helpful"? I can't think of a single way that they help. Correcting incorrect titles or misspelled words or redirect like that is one thing, but how does it help anybody if you change horse breaking to horse training (to take a random example from the Derby Stallion article)? It hides the fact that there is no article on horse breaking - a clearly distinct concept from horse training and it reduces the likelihood that anyone will write an article on horse breaking. In what world does that help in any way whatsoever? At very best it's a completely pointless time-wasting activity. And it's one that you have been warned over and over and over again to stop. Does the consensus of your fellow editor on this issue really matter so little to you that you are unwilling to put an end to this distinctly non-helpful activity? Does the possibility that you may get blocked for a 24th (!!!) time mean nothing to you? I hope I'm not overreacting here, but I find your conduct in this one trivial editorial area to be truly incomprehensible. -Thibbs (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been careful to avoid those types of link changes. How is changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3" doing any harm? There is never gonna be a "Playstation 3" article, ever. And in that Derby Stallion article, changing "PlayStation" to "PlayStation (console)" IS directly helpful and needed because the latter refers to the game system called PlayStation and the former refers to the general product line. Or changing links to "Famicom" to be "Nintendo Entertainment System|Famicom", there will never be a separate Famicom article because it's just the Japanese name of the NES. Sometimes I make mistakes (like with the horse breaking one), but I see it as vandalism when editors revert the whole edit instead of just specific link changes they see as bad.  TJ   Spyke   15:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Look I recognize that apart from this one issue (and I guess the 3RR stuff from your past that I think you've mostly stopped now) you are a good editor. And I also recognize that you're human and that you may make mistakes. But seeing as how you've made so many many mistakes in this one particular area I would seriously recommend avoiding it altogether. Just skimming the cleanups you've performed since you were last unblocked, it's apparent that the large majority of the redirect "fixes" you performed were potentially harmful. And a tiny minority of them are helpful in any way.
 * Is there a reason you feel compelled to change the redirects? I assume it's not just to boost your edit count, right? But is it just because it looks ugly on WPCleaner? Or do you really think that this is somehow helpful? If you do think it is helpful then have you considered making the case to change the guidelines at WP:NOTBROKEN? Because there are only 2 listed exceptions to that guideline currently. I wouldn't say that this is a complete list of all good exceptions, though. Your example of changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3", for instance, seems to me to be correcting a misspelling (or really a mis-capitalization). And I think that this is helpful and that it should be listed as an exception to WP:NOTBROKEN.
 * Why don't you and I try to come up with some exceptions that we could propose to the community together to improve the guidelines so that you're not constantly violating them? If you could come up with a reason why changing "video arcade" to "amusement arcade" or how changing "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System" or how changing "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" helps in any way then you could certainly make that suggestion as well. This would be a much much better way of approaching the problem than just ignoring everyone's warnings and getting banned over and over, don't you think? I'd be willing to help draft some proposed changes if you're willing to engage with me and explain why you feel compelled to violate this guideline. -Thibbs (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me (and withe something like the Dragon Quest, it's because the series name in English was Dragon Warrior before the the Dragon Quest VIII. Amusement arcade and video arcade are essentially interchangeable terms like "pop" and "soda". As for Famicom, aren't we supposed to use English names of products if that is the best known name? Famicom is just the Japanese name of the NES, so I would think other WP policies supported changing them to NES). I've never bothered trying to have NOTBROKEN changed because I know from experience how hard it can be to have policies on Wikipedia changed. Maybe later today or something we can start working on this together to propose changes that seem like common sense to most people.  TJ   Spyke   16:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm encouraged by your attitude. I think we should discuss this thoroughly between us here before proposing anything so that we're clear in our arguments. It's OK if we disagree too, since we can propose changes individually to be accepted piecemeal rather than only as a single package. Anyway here are my thoughts on what you've said just above:
 * Like the term "video arcade", the other two are also examples of synonymous terms: Dragon Warrior is the North American term whereas the English term is actually Dragon Quest (the same is true for all European countries and Japan actually); Famicom is the original Japanese name for the NES. According to NOTBROKEN (point 6), the use of a synonymous redirect term provides useful information relating to usage of the term which can be considered as evidence for renaming the article. By systematically changing these links to the current non-redirect title, you are manipulating the usage statistics. As an example: it might be that the term "Dragon Quest" is better known than "Dragon Warrior", but because you'd have changed all of the "Dragon Quest" redirects into "Dragon Warrior," you would have eradicated this information and we would get a false impression that "Dragon Warrior" was the most commonly used term when in reality it was only the most commonly used because the statistics had been manipulated. If you don't like that example, try imagining the reverse. Imagine someone who called the game "Dragon Quest" trying to make the case that the article should be renamed. So first he would change all the links to redirects and then point to the incoming links as evidence that everyone calls it Dragon Quest. You can see how that would be a problem, right? I think what NOTBROKEN is saying is that it's safest if we rely on the real usage statistics by refraining from changing synonymous terms. They are synonyms, after all, so the meaning is identical, right?
 * But I think you might have a point if your central concern was consistency. There have been large discussions in the past regarding whether or not Wikipedia should preferentially use the term "Sega Genesis" or "Master Drive" for example. I'm sure the same could exist for terms from popular consumer products like "Famicom/NES" or "Dragon Quest/Warrior" as well. If there has been a community discussion where one term was decided as the preferred term then I think you could make the case that perhaps it would be a good idea to use a single term in the interest of consistency. Does that sound like it might be the core of your argument for these words? Or do you instead find a problem with NOTBROKEN's argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics?
 * Another redirect dodge I was hoping you could explain is when you changed "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games". These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN's argument that "Shortcuts or redirects to sections of articles ... should never be bypassed, as the section headings on the page may change over time [and] Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links" (point 4; emphasis and ellipses added). So you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions? -Thibbs (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi TJ Spyke. Just checking in again. What's happening now? Why has this conversation stalled? Have you had a chance to read what I just wrote above? I noticed that you've again resumed with the NOTBROKEN violations (swapping "United States of America" for "United States"). I don't think it's too much to ask that you completely refrain from this kind of edit until we've finished discussing our plans for how to present our argument at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. You are violating the guidelines when you make this kind of edit and you've been asked to stop over and over again. Please help me come up with some exceptions that we can present for consensus instead of just continuing to stubbornly violate the guidelines and hope that I'll go away. I won't. I really want to work with you here, but if I see it again I will bring it to AN/I. -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, I didnt do anything wrong with United States. It's the common name of the country and what everyone writes (hell, even the article uses the name) and I know that did NOT violate any rule. Frankly, saying that deleting two words so it uses the common name is wrong, is like saying you can't edit a article to fix a spelling mistake. Might as well freeze all editing. Did I somehow violate it in another article when I changed Major League Baseball to Major League Baseball ? Anyways, i've been busy. But im free now.  TJ   Spyke   15:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Repairing broken wikilinks is not a violation of NOTBROKEN, but changing from one synonymous term (like the official name of a country) to another synonymous term (like the common name for a country) for the same target article is definitely a violation of NOTBROKEN. I don't mean this to sound rude, but you have to accept the fact that your judgment on whether or not a redirect "fix" violates NOTBROKEN is clearly quite poor. I strongly urge you to avoid making those kinds of edits even if you are certain that you're in the right because you are obviously unable to differentiate between violations and non-violations. Anyway I'm glad to hear that you're free now and I'm eager to get to work on the exceptions. -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding Dragon Warrior/Quest, it is not true that Quest was common in European countries. The first game in the series even RELEASED in Europe was Dragon Warrior Monsters in 1999 (where it used "Warrior"), they didnt get another one until Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King (which was when Square Enix FIRST used the "Quest" name outside of Japan). So considering that for almost 20 years the only English name of the series was "Warrior", it makes sense for the ones released with the Warrior name to use that. As for exceptions to NOTBROKEN:


 * I think fixing spelling mistakes and capitalization (i.e. Playstation to PlayStation) are good ones that are not controversial.
 * Hmmm, maybe switching some to the most common name can be OK (though within the right context)
 * Sometimes things will never get an article. I.e. a character who appeared once on a TV show 20 years ago will probably never get an article as they are not notable enough, but they might have an entry in a article about characters from that show. Is it a problem to change a link to that section specifically?
 * If a product is released under one name in most of the world, shouldn't it be OK to write that as the name? I.e. NES/Famicom. Famicom is the Japanese name of the system, but they are still the same system. Doesn't it make sense to change the links to NES? It's especially ridiculous when some articles say a game was released on the NES and Famicom (implying they are different).

Maybe others, but these are off the top of my head.  TJ   Spyke   15:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All PAL versions of the main series are called "Dragon Quest," but that's quite beside the point. The point is that these are synonymous terms and "fixing" them to avoid the redirect violates NOTBROKEN point #6. Unless there has been a discussion leading to a consistency-based preference for one term over the other, the term used by the first European spinoff title has no significance whatsoever and the redirect should not be altered. But this brings me to the question I asked last week:
 * Is switching "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" (or "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System", etc.) something that you have been doing in the interest of inter-article consistency? Is that the core of your argument? Or do you simply reject NOTBROKEN's point #6 (i.e. the argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics)?
 * And as long as I'm re-asking questions from last week,...
 * Could you explain your thought process behind changing "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games"? These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN point #4 (described in last week's comment above). Do you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions?
 * Regarding your exceptions, I agree strongly with the first one (spelling & capitalization). That's definitely going into the final draft of our proposal. I also think that the alteration of redirect terms to reflect a consistent consensus-based terminology (if indeed such a consensus exists) is a good idea. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
 * The other three points you bring up are kind of confusing for me. I don't really think you've presented any argument for making them into exceptions. Basically your reasoning appears to boil down to "Let's make these into exceptions, because why not?" The problem with this is that NOTBROKEN is a consensus-based guideline. Nobody would take us seriously if we proposed exceptions to it without actually giving concrete reasons why the exceptions are needed. The answer to your "is it a problem?" and "shouldn't it be OK?" questions above would be answered by the editors at NOTBROKEN with "Yes it's a problem (see point #4), and no it's not OK (see point #6)." These are consensus-based views on those exact topics.
 * To create an exception we can't just ignore consensus. We have to find a reason that the consensus view is too broad and that in narrowly definable situations the general rules at NOTBROKEN should be excepted. Then we have to convince others based on solid reasoning. If there is no way to distinguish the area to which the rule applies from the area to which the exception applies then we have to propose knocking down part of the rules which will be a much more difficult task and will absolutely require ironclad arguments, not just "why not?" In addition to answering the questions I bulleted above, could you please try to think of specific reasons why we need (or how it would be helpful to have) an exception for common names, obscure aspects, and synonymous terms? -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again TJ Spyke. What is your schedule like? Are you going to have any free time in the next few weeks? I'd like to move forward with our plans regarding the development of a few more exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN. It's been nearly a month since we began talking about this, but if we're to move this forward we have to actually discuss it. I don't want to do this without your help. In fact most of my interest in getting this done is to help editors like you who seem to have problems with the current guidelines. Is this something that still interests you? When will you be available to answer questions like those I asked in the last post? Please don't just leave me hanging here. -Thibbs (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well while I'm waiting for word from you on some kind of timeframe I noticed that you'd performed a few more redirect "fixes" since I last asked you to stop and I can report that I agree most of them. But edits like this and this suggest further exceptions to the rule. From the first of those two links (relinking to the actual page name on a dab page), I think this brings up a good point - that we should add an exception for disambiguation pages per WP:PIPING. The second one (changing a link to a plural term into a link to the singular) looks like just another "fix" for reasons of your own. Can you explain that change? Was there a reason you decided to again violate NOTBROKEN in that case? For all I know there may be policy/guideline supporting that edit but if so then this suggests another good exception. -Thibbs (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and  claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place and second place  both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 16:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

When are you available to discuss the WP:NOTBROKEN exceptions?
Hi again TJ Spyke, sorry to keep bumping your talk page, but I'm concerned that my last post may have gotten lost in the shuffle due to the changes in the message alert banner and since my post is no longer at the bottom of your page. Basically I'm wondering if you intend to continue with our discussions regarding exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN and, if so, I'm wondering when you'll be available to discuss. I'm not really interested in making this into a several-month-long project. Right now we have only a single exception that we both agree on. I've proposed two other based on violative edits of yours that happen to I agree with, and I assume we'd be in agreement on those but I'd like your feedback. I've also suggested that you need to clarify a number of the suggestions you'd made earlier. Do you intend to clarify those or should we just forget about them? I'm perfectly willing to make the proposal to alter the guidelines myself, but considering that you are the one who is constantly violating NOTBROKEN, I'm still hoping that you will be motivated to help me come up with a good set of exceptions. If you don't "buy into" and take some degree of ownership of the proposal yourself then I'm gravely concerned that you'll go back to your egregious violations the moment you think nobody is watching. Please let me know when you will be available to discuss this proposal. -Thibbs (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Tomorrow or Thur should be good for me. I've just been real busy with real life lately (only having a few mins at a time to even come on Wikipedia).  TJ   Spyke   19:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

OK so as I see it we've agreed to the following exception: And based on edits you've made that violate NOTBROKEN but that I agree with I've come up with the following two exceptions that I hope you'll give me input on: Beyond these, you have also suggested exceptions for the following: And you've made recent edits reflecting personal exceptions of your to the following: I don't understand the need for any of these later sets of exceptions and so you can either explain why they are needed/helpful or we can forget about them. In the meanwhile I see that yesterday and today have been busy days for you in terms of further violations of NOTBROKEN (e.g. "Alyattes II" -> "Alyattes of Lydia"; "Battle of Narvik" -> "Battles of Narvik"; "James McDougal" -> "Jim McDougal", etc., etc.) which saddens me. Because I've asked you repeatedly to avoid making these kinds of edits while we're in discussion on this topic and because you've continued to make them in great numbers I hope you can understand my frustration with your behavior. I had really hoped to make this a quick ~1-month discussion but due to your prolonged absences and your flagrant rule violation when you are around, I've decided to drop a note at AN/I. I'm still hopeful that we can discuss this issue and make some of the proposals listed above, but because I'm not as free from now until September I feel as though we need some extra third-party attention on the situation. I hope we can get this situation resolved very quickly. -Thibbs (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Common names
 * Obscure aspects that may never get a full article
 * Synonymous terms that are used more in one country than another
 * Synonymous terms generally
 * Plurals
 * The AN/I thread is here. Feel free to add your thoughts to the thread. -Thibbs (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Well Thursday has come and gone and now Friday is almost over. I'm disappointed that you weren't able to find the time to discuss the proposals any further, and now I see that you've been given an indefinite block. As I said at the AN/I, this wasn't what I had requested but I do understand why the community saw fit to apply this remedy. I am still open to your thoughts on R2D exceptions but I can understand if you wish to end our conversation considering that you are no longer welcome to edit. Either way I do intend to make at least the three proposals listed above. I'm sorry that this whole mess ended the way it did. -Thibbs (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to update you one this, I did make the proposal on my own for the three exceptions we'd come up with, but...
 * The spelling exception was determined not to really be an exception since it's already covered under Wikipedia's general rules regarding correct typography.
 * The "fixing" of disambiguation pages was found to actually violate WP:DABREDIR, and
 * Consistent consensus-based terminology was considered to fit within the penumbra of "other reasons to make the change" from the text of the rule.
 * The first two were quickly taken care of, but the third one took a little discussion and basically the end result was that the wording of WP:NOTBROKEN was changed a bit to clarify what is allowed and what isn't. I know this may come as cold comfort to you under your current editing restrictions, but perhaps it will cheer you to know that the problems that befell you will perhaps serve to help future editors better (more clearly) understand why "fixing" redirects is a mistake. Thanks for working with me a little to come up with the proposal. I do wish you had been more invested in a positive outcome here, but anyway that's all behind us now. Take care. -Thibbs (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

HELP Keep a Social Media War off Wikipedia
There appears to be a Social Media War that has been brought here to Wikipedia, and negative info is being left on the Michelle Borth page that is not necessary. You came to me a few years ago, explaining the boundaries of Wikipedia. Well it appears that they are being broken on Michelle's page. Any input, feedback would help. This little war/argument has gone too far especially now that is being brought to other sites like Wikipedia. This particular user is claiming I have no right to remove the negative info about Michelle, regardless of whether it is true or not, until it is discussed. I feel that if me and this user attempted to discuss, it will get very heated, and you seem to really know ur way, I'd appreciate it Taker22 (talk) 10:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Continual redirect problems by User:TJ Spyke. Thank you. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 23:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're about to be blocked indefinitely. If I were you I'd be pleading my case at ANI. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Ashley Fliehr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Providence High School


 * List of acronyms: W (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to WWF


 * Takeshi's Castle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Fuji

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Question about cleanup process
Hi TJ Spyke, I noticed that you've been cleaning up numerous articles today and I was curious how you were doing it. Is it all by hand or do you use a program? Specifically I'm curious how you check the wikilinks. Are you testing each one individually or is there a tool you have that highlights all redirects? -Thibbs (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I use WPCleaner to check articles, but there are some edits that can't be made with it (like spellchecking, typos, etc.), so I then manually edit it after (essentially, I copy and paste the results from WPCleaner, then continue editing the article).  TJ   Spyke   21:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. Is WPCleaner something that you can download from a Wikimedia site/affiliate or should I just Google it if I want to find it? -Thibbs (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here you go: WPCleaner.  TJ   Spyke   21:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm sorry to say I've reverted your edit at the Derby Stallion article yet again. The links that you are "fixing" are indeed redirect links. And per WP:NOTBROKEN, redirects within an article are not supposed to be changed so that they point to the target article instead. There are a number of reasons why this is harmful to Wikipedia and they're clearly spelled out under WP:NOTBROKEN. This has become a problem in the past with users accidentally abusing the Navigation popup tool to "fix" redirects as you're doing and the result was this page. This is actually the reason I was asking above what tool you were using. I was curious to see what other tools were being subjected to this kind of abuse. The WPCleaner talk page is filled with comments regarding users mistakenly "fixing" redirects (e.g. 1, 2, 3, and many more in the archives from 2008 and earlier). The thing is... I've already explained all of this to you in the past (see e.g. 1 and 2). And I know you are aware of this issue because you have already received a final warning on the subject. So I really don't see how what you are doing could be considered good faith editing. Your editing is contrary to the guidelines and you have been repeatedly told this and warned to stop. Normally I'd suggest trying to get the guidelines changed before carrying on in this way, but in this case from your block log it's clear to me that you've consciously decided to change matters unilaterally rather than by seeking consensus. For this reason I've requested administrative action. -Thibbs (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, you did not read NOTBROKEN correctly at all. I have not been making the kinds of edits that got me into trouble before, I have been careful to only makes ones that follow the guidelines. I am sorry that you are not a good editor and dont like others making articles better, but stop vandalizing pages by reverting good edits. I am hesitant to give you a warning, but I will. Frankly, its people like you who are driving editors away from Wikipedia and preventing so many articles from being improved. Go away.  TJ   Spyke   00:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't react like this to new editors. I react this way to editors who have been editing here for 7-odd years and are among the top 400 most prolific editors and who have received a shocking number of warnings and frank blocks including an indef block. You obviously know better than to persist in these games but yet you continue. AGF only extends so far. You clearly have no regard for community guidelines founded on consensus and are only interested in your own editorial decisions. I'm sorry that you decided to take this route. It was a very poor decision on your part. -Thibbs (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, to Derby Stallion (series) is full of unhelpful changes as per WP:NOTBROKEN.  Amalthea  09:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, I see no unhelpful edits. I will not pretend 100% of my edits have been helpful, but ask any average editor and that change is nothing but helpful. And frankly, you shouldnt drive away good editors since fewer and fewer people are editing Wikipedia now. I also notice that I only get hounded when I mass edit articles, I dont get harassed when I only edit a few articles a day.  TJ   Spyke   20:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "It is likewise unhelpful to edit visible links for no reason other than to avoid redirects." Amalthea  22:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A great majority of your NOTBROKEN violations are harmful actually. Try actually reading the guideline. You might be surprised to discover that there are at least six explicitly listed reasons not to change (bypass) redirects. One obvious one is that you are whitewashing usage stats - an activity that is at best completely pointless. But more often it's not completely harmless. It's directly harmful because it obscures the need for new articles on topics that aren't covered and it hides more appropriate and thus needed page-moves.
 * How on earth could these violations be "nothing but helpful"? I can't think of a single way that they help. Correcting incorrect titles or misspelled words or redirect like that is one thing, but how does it help anybody if you change horse breaking to horse training (to take a random example from the Derby Stallion article)? It hides the fact that there is no article on horse breaking - a clearly distinct concept from horse training and it reduces the likelihood that anyone will write an article on horse breaking. In what world does that help in any way whatsoever? At very best it's a completely pointless time-wasting activity. And it's one that you have been warned over and over and over again to stop. Does the consensus of your fellow editor on this issue really matter so little to you that you are unwilling to put an end to this distinctly non-helpful activity? Does the possibility that you may get blocked for a 24th (!!!) time mean nothing to you? I hope I'm not overreacting here, but I find your conduct in this one trivial editorial area to be truly incomprehensible. -Thibbs (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been careful to avoid those types of link changes. How is changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3" doing any harm? There is never gonna be a "Playstation 3" article, ever. And in that Derby Stallion article, changing "PlayStation" to "PlayStation (console)" IS directly helpful and needed because the latter refers to the game system called PlayStation and the former refers to the general product line. Or changing links to "Famicom" to be "Nintendo Entertainment System|Famicom", there will never be a separate Famicom article because it's just the Japanese name of the NES. Sometimes I make mistakes (like with the horse breaking one), but I see it as vandalism when editors revert the whole edit instead of just specific link changes they see as bad.  TJ   Spyke   15:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Look I recognize that apart from this one issue (and I guess the 3RR stuff from your past that I think you've mostly stopped now) you are a good editor. And I also recognize that you're human and that you may make mistakes. But seeing as how you've made so many many mistakes in this one particular area I would seriously recommend avoiding it altogether. Just skimming the cleanups you've performed since you were last unblocked, it's apparent that the large majority of the redirect "fixes" you performed were potentially harmful. And a tiny minority of them are helpful in any way.
 * Is there a reason you feel compelled to change the redirects? I assume it's not just to boost your edit count, right? But is it just because it looks ugly on WPCleaner? Or do you really think that this is somehow helpful? If you do think it is helpful then have you considered making the case to change the guidelines at WP:NOTBROKEN? Because there are only 2 listed exceptions to that guideline currently. I wouldn't say that this is a complete list of all good exceptions, though. Your example of changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3", for instance, seems to me to be correcting a misspelling (or really a mis-capitalization). And I think that this is helpful and that it should be listed as an exception to WP:NOTBROKEN.
 * Why don't you and I try to come up with some exceptions that we could propose to the community together to improve the guidelines so that you're not constantly violating them? If you could come up with a reason why changing "video arcade" to "amusement arcade" or how changing "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System" or how changing "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" helps in any way then you could certainly make that suggestion as well. This would be a much much better way of approaching the problem than just ignoring everyone's warnings and getting banned over and over, don't you think? I'd be willing to help draft some proposed changes if you're willing to engage with me and explain why you feel compelled to violate this guideline. -Thibbs (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me (and withe something like the Dragon Quest, it's because the series name in English was Dragon Warrior before the the Dragon Quest VIII. Amusement arcade and video arcade are essentially interchangeable terms like "pop" and "soda". As for Famicom, aren't we supposed to use English names of products if that is the best known name? Famicom is just the Japanese name of the NES, so I would think other WP policies supported changing them to NES). I've never bothered trying to have NOTBROKEN changed because I know from experience how hard it can be to have policies on Wikipedia changed. Maybe later today or something we can start working on this together to propose changes that seem like common sense to most people.  TJ   Spyke   16:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm encouraged by your attitude. I think we should discuss this thoroughly between us here before proposing anything so that we're clear in our arguments. It's OK if we disagree too, since we can propose changes individually to be accepted piecemeal rather than only as a single package. Anyway here are my thoughts on what you've said just above:
 * Like the term "video arcade", the other two are also examples of synonymous terms: Dragon Warrior is the North American term whereas the English term is actually Dragon Quest (the same is true for all European countries and Japan actually); Famicom is the original Japanese name for the NES. According to NOTBROKEN (point 6), the use of a synonymous redirect term provides useful information relating to usage of the term which can be considered as evidence for renaming the article. By systematically changing these links to the current non-redirect title, you are manipulating the usage statistics. As an example: it might be that the term "Dragon Quest" is better known than "Dragon Warrior", but because you'd have changed all of the "Dragon Quest" redirects into "Dragon Warrior," you would have eradicated this information and we would get a false impression that "Dragon Warrior" was the most commonly used term when in reality it was only the most commonly used because the statistics had been manipulated. If you don't like that example, try imagining the reverse. Imagine someone who called the game "Dragon Quest" trying to make the case that the article should be renamed. So first he would change all the links to redirects and then point to the incoming links as evidence that everyone calls it Dragon Quest. You can see how that would be a problem, right? I think what NOTBROKEN is saying is that it's safest if we rely on the real usage statistics by refraining from changing synonymous terms. They are synonyms, after all, so the meaning is identical, right?
 * But I think you might have a point if your central concern was consistency. There have been large discussions in the past regarding whether or not Wikipedia should preferentially use the term "Sega Genesis" or "Master Drive" for example. I'm sure the same could exist for terms from popular consumer products like "Famicom/NES" or "Dragon Quest/Warrior" as well. If there has been a community discussion where one term was decided as the preferred term then I think you could make the case that perhaps it would be a good idea to use a single term in the interest of consistency. Does that sound like it might be the core of your argument for these words? Or do you instead find a problem with NOTBROKEN's argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics?
 * Another redirect dodge I was hoping you could explain is when you changed "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games". These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN's argument that "Shortcuts or redirects to sections of articles ... should never be bypassed, as the section headings on the page may change over time [and] Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links" (point 4; emphasis and ellipses added). So you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions? -Thibbs (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi TJ Spyke. Just checking in again. What's happening now? Why has this conversation stalled? Have you had a chance to read what I just wrote above? I noticed that you've again resumed with the NOTBROKEN violations (swapping "United States of America" for "United States"). I don't think it's too much to ask that you completely refrain from this kind of edit until we've finished discussing our plans for how to present our argument at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. You are violating the guidelines when you make this kind of edit and you've been asked to stop over and over again. Please help me come up with some exceptions that we can present for consensus instead of just continuing to stubbornly violate the guidelines and hope that I'll go away. I won't. I really want to work with you here, but if I see it again I will bring it to AN/I. -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, I didnt do anything wrong with United States. It's the common name of the country and what everyone writes (hell, even the article uses the name) and I know that did NOT violate any rule. Frankly, saying that deleting two words so it uses the common name is wrong, is like saying you can't edit a article to fix a spelling mistake. Might as well freeze all editing. Did I somehow violate it in another article when I changed Major League Baseball to Major League Baseball ? Anyways, i've been busy. But im free now.  TJ   Spyke   15:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Repairing broken wikilinks is not a violation of NOTBROKEN, but changing from one synonymous term (like the official name of a country) to another synonymous term (like the common name for a country) for the same target article is definitely a violation of NOTBROKEN. I don't mean this to sound rude, but you have to accept the fact that your judgment on whether or not a redirect "fix" violates NOTBROKEN is clearly quite poor. I strongly urge you to avoid making those kinds of edits even if you are certain that you're in the right because you are obviously unable to differentiate between violations and non-violations. Anyway I'm glad to hear that you're free now and I'm eager to get to work on the exceptions. -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding Dragon Warrior/Quest, it is not true that Quest was common in European countries. The first game in the series even RELEASED in Europe was Dragon Warrior Monsters in 1999 (where it used "Warrior"), they didnt get another one until Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King (which was when Square Enix FIRST used the "Quest" name outside of Japan). So considering that for almost 20 years the only English name of the series was "Warrior", it makes sense for the ones released with the Warrior name to use that. As for exceptions to NOTBROKEN:


 * I think fixing spelling mistakes and capitalization (i.e. Playstation to PlayStation) are good ones that are not controversial.
 * Hmmm, maybe switching some to the most common name can be OK (though within the right context)
 * Sometimes things will never get an article. I.e. a character who appeared once on a TV show 20 years ago will probably never get an article as they are not notable enough, but they might have an entry in a article about characters from that show. Is it a problem to change a link to that section specifically?
 * If a product is released under one name in most of the world, shouldn't it be OK to write that as the name? I.e. NES/Famicom. Famicom is the Japanese name of the system, but they are still the same system. Doesn't it make sense to change the links to NES? It's especially ridiculous when some articles say a game was released on the NES and Famicom (implying they are different).

Maybe others, but these are off the top of my head.  TJ   Spyke   15:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All PAL versions of the main series are called "Dragon Quest," but that's quite beside the point. The point is that these are synonymous terms and "fixing" them to avoid the redirect violates NOTBROKEN point #6. Unless there has been a discussion leading to a consistency-based preference for one term over the other, the term used by the first European spinoff title has no significance whatsoever and the redirect should not be altered. But this brings me to the question I asked last week:
 * Is switching "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" (or "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System", etc.) something that you have been doing in the interest of inter-article consistency? Is that the core of your argument? Or do you simply reject NOTBROKEN's point #6 (i.e. the argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics)?
 * And as long as I'm re-asking questions from last week,...
 * Could you explain your thought process behind changing "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games"? These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN point #4 (described in last week's comment above). Do you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions?
 * Regarding your exceptions, I agree strongly with the first one (spelling & capitalization). That's definitely going into the final draft of our proposal. I also think that the alteration of redirect terms to reflect a consistent consensus-based terminology (if indeed such a consensus exists) is a good idea. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
 * The other three points you bring up are kind of confusing for me. I don't really think you've presented any argument for making them into exceptions. Basically your reasoning appears to boil down to "Let's make these into exceptions, because why not?" The problem with this is that NOTBROKEN is a consensus-based guideline. Nobody would take us seriously if we proposed exceptions to it without actually giving concrete reasons why the exceptions are needed. The answer to your "is it a problem?" and "shouldn't it be OK?" questions above would be answered by the editors at NOTBROKEN with "Yes it's a problem (see point #4), and no it's not OK (see point #6)." These are consensus-based views on those exact topics.
 * To create an exception we can't just ignore consensus. We have to find a reason that the consensus view is too broad and that in narrowly definable situations the general rules at NOTBROKEN should be excepted. Then we have to convince others based on solid reasoning. If there is no way to distinguish the area to which the rule applies from the area to which the exception applies then we have to propose knocking down part of the rules which will be a much more difficult task and will absolutely require ironclad arguments, not just "why not?" In addition to answering the questions I bulleted above, could you please try to think of specific reasons why we need (or how it would be helpful to have) an exception for common names, obscure aspects, and synonymous terms? -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again TJ Spyke. What is your schedule like? Are you going to have any free time in the next few weeks? I'd like to move forward with our plans regarding the development of a few more exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN. It's been nearly a month since we began talking about this, but if we're to move this forward we have to actually discuss it. I don't want to do this without your help. In fact most of my interest in getting this done is to help editors like you who seem to have problems with the current guidelines. Is this something that still interests you? When will you be available to answer questions like those I asked in the last post? Please don't just leave me hanging here. -Thibbs (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well while I'm waiting for word from you on some kind of timeframe I noticed that you'd performed a few more redirect "fixes" since I last asked you to stop and I can report that I agree most of them. But edits like this and this suggest further exceptions to the rule. From the first of those two links (relinking to the actual page name on a dab page), I think this brings up a good point - that we should add an exception for disambiguation pages per WP:PIPING. The second one (changing a link to a plural term into a link to the singular) looks like just another "fix" for reasons of your own. Can you explain that change? Was there a reason you decided to again violate NOTBROKEN in that case? For all I know there may be policy/guideline supporting that edit but if so then this suggests another good exception. -Thibbs (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and  claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place and second place  both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 16:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

When are you available to discuss the WP:NOTBROKEN exceptions?
Hi again TJ Spyke, sorry to keep bumping your talk page, but I'm concerned that my last post may have gotten lost in the shuffle due to the changes in the message alert banner and since my post is no longer at the bottom of your page. Basically I'm wondering if you intend to continue with our discussions regarding exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN and, if so, I'm wondering when you'll be available to discuss. I'm not really interested in making this into a several-month-long project. Right now we have only a single exception that we both agree on. I've proposed two other based on violative edits of yours that happen to I agree with, and I assume we'd be in agreement on those but I'd like your feedback. I've also suggested that you need to clarify a number of the suggestions you'd made earlier. Do you intend to clarify those or should we just forget about them? I'm perfectly willing to make the proposal to alter the guidelines myself, but considering that you are the one who is constantly violating NOTBROKEN, I'm still hoping that you will be motivated to help me come up with a good set of exceptions. If you don't "buy into" and take some degree of ownership of the proposal yourself then I'm gravely concerned that you'll go back to your egregious violations the moment you think nobody is watching. Please let me know when you will be available to discuss this proposal. -Thibbs (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Tomorrow or Thur should be good for me. I've just been real busy with real life lately (only having a few mins at a time to even come on Wikipedia).  TJ   Spyke   19:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

OK so as I see it we've agreed to the following exception: And based on edits you've made that violate NOTBROKEN but that I agree with I've come up with the following two exceptions that I hope you'll give me input on: Beyond these, you have also suggested exceptions for the following: And you've made recent edits reflecting personal exceptions of your to the following: I don't understand the need for any of these later sets of exceptions and so you can either explain why they are needed/helpful or we can forget about them. In the meanwhile I see that yesterday and today have been busy days for you in terms of further violations of NOTBROKEN (e.g. "Alyattes II" -> "Alyattes of Lydia"; "Battle of Narvik" -> "Battles of Narvik"; "James McDougal" -> "Jim McDougal", etc., etc.) which saddens me. Because I've asked you repeatedly to avoid making these kinds of edits while we're in discussion on this topic and because you've continued to make them in great numbers I hope you can understand my frustration with your behavior. I had really hoped to make this a quick ~1-month discussion but due to your prolonged absences and your flagrant rule violation when you are around, I've decided to drop a note at AN/I. I'm still hopeful that we can discuss this issue and make some of the proposals listed above, but because I'm not as free from now until September I feel as though we need some extra third-party attention on the situation. I hope we can get this situation resolved very quickly. -Thibbs (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Common names
 * Obscure aspects that may never get a full article
 * Synonymous terms that are used more in one country than another
 * Synonymous terms generally
 * Plurals
 * The AN/I thread is here. Feel free to add your thoughts to the thread. -Thibbs (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Well Thursday has come and gone and now Friday is almost over. I'm disappointed that you weren't able to find the time to discuss the proposals any further, and now I see that you've been given an indefinite block. As I said at the AN/I, this wasn't what I had requested but I do understand why the community saw fit to apply this remedy. I am still open to your thoughts on R2D exceptions but I can understand if you wish to end our conversation considering that you are no longer welcome to edit. Either way I do intend to make at least the three proposals listed above. I'm sorry that this whole mess ended the way it did. -Thibbs (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to update you one this, I did make the proposal on my own for the three exceptions we'd come up with, but...
 * The spelling exception was determined not to really be an exception since it's already covered under Wikipedia's general rules regarding correct typography.
 * The "fixing" of disambiguation pages was found to actually violate WP:DABREDIR, and
 * Consistent consensus-based terminology was considered to fit within the penumbra of "other reasons to make the change" from the text of the rule.
 * The first two were quickly taken care of, but the third one took a little discussion and basically the end result was that the wording of WP:NOTBROKEN was changed a bit to clarify what is allowed and what isn't. I know this may come as cold comfort to you under your current editing restrictions, but perhaps it will cheer you to know that the problems that befell you will perhaps serve to help future editors better (more clearly) understand why "fixing" redirects is a mistake. Thanks for working with me a little to come up with the proposal. I do wish you had been more invested in a positive outcome here, but anyway that's all behind us now. Take care. -Thibbs (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

HELP Keep a Social Media War off Wikipedia
There appears to be a Social Media War that has been brought here to Wikipedia, and negative info is being left on the Michelle Borth page that is not necessary. You came to me a few years ago, explaining the boundaries of Wikipedia. Well it appears that they are being broken on Michelle's page. Any input, feedback would help. This little war/argument has gone too far especially now that is being brought to other sites like Wikipedia. This particular user is claiming I have no right to remove the negative info about Michelle, regardless of whether it is true or not, until it is discussed. I feel that if me and this user attempted to discuss, it will get very heated, and you seem to really know ur way, I'd appreciate it Taker22 (talk) 10:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Continual redirect problems by User:TJ Spyke. Thank you. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 23:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're about to be blocked indefinitely. If I were you I'd be pleading my case at ANI. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Ashley Fliehr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Providence High School


 * List of acronyms: W (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to WWF


 * Takeshi's Castle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Fuji

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Question about cleanup process
Hi TJ Spyke, I noticed that you've been cleaning up numerous articles today and I was curious how you were doing it. Is it all by hand or do you use a program? Specifically I'm curious how you check the wikilinks. Are you testing each one individually or is there a tool you have that highlights all redirects? -Thibbs (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I use WPCleaner to check articles, but there are some edits that can't be made with it (like spellchecking, typos, etc.), so I then manually edit it after (essentially, I copy and paste the results from WPCleaner, then continue editing the article).  TJ   Spyke   21:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. Is WPCleaner something that you can download from a Wikimedia site/affiliate or should I just Google it if I want to find it? -Thibbs (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here you go: WPCleaner.  TJ   Spyke   21:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm sorry to say I've reverted your edit at the Derby Stallion article yet again. The links that you are "fixing" are indeed redirect links. And per WP:NOTBROKEN, redirects within an article are not supposed to be changed so that they point to the target article instead. There are a number of reasons why this is harmful to Wikipedia and they're clearly spelled out under WP:NOTBROKEN. This has become a problem in the past with users accidentally abusing the Navigation popup tool to "fix" redirects as you're doing and the result was this page. This is actually the reason I was asking above what tool you were using. I was curious to see what other tools were being subjected to this kind of abuse. The WPCleaner talk page is filled with comments regarding users mistakenly "fixing" redirects (e.g. 1, 2, 3, and many more in the archives from 2008 and earlier). The thing is... I've already explained all of this to you in the past (see e.g. 1 and 2). And I know you are aware of this issue because you have already received a final warning on the subject. So I really don't see how what you are doing could be considered good faith editing. Your editing is contrary to the guidelines and you have been repeatedly told this and warned to stop. Normally I'd suggest trying to get the guidelines changed before carrying on in this way, but in this case from your block log it's clear to me that you've consciously decided to change matters unilaterally rather than by seeking consensus. For this reason I've requested administrative action. -Thibbs (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, you did not read NOTBROKEN correctly at all. I have not been making the kinds of edits that got me into trouble before, I have been careful to only makes ones that follow the guidelines. I am sorry that you are not a good editor and dont like others making articles better, but stop vandalizing pages by reverting good edits. I am hesitant to give you a warning, but I will. Frankly, its people like you who are driving editors away from Wikipedia and preventing so many articles from being improved. Go away.  TJ   Spyke   00:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't react like this to new editors. I react this way to editors who have been editing here for 7-odd years and are among the top 400 most prolific editors and who have received a shocking number of warnings and frank blocks including an indef block. You obviously know better than to persist in these games but yet you continue. AGF only extends so far. You clearly have no regard for community guidelines founded on consensus and are only interested in your own editorial decisions. I'm sorry that you decided to take this route. It was a very poor decision on your part. -Thibbs (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, to Derby Stallion (series) is full of unhelpful changes as per WP:NOTBROKEN.  Amalthea  09:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, I see no unhelpful edits. I will not pretend 100% of my edits have been helpful, but ask any average editor and that change is nothing but helpful. And frankly, you shouldnt drive away good editors since fewer and fewer people are editing Wikipedia now. I also notice that I only get hounded when I mass edit articles, I dont get harassed when I only edit a few articles a day.  TJ   Spyke   20:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "It is likewise unhelpful to edit visible links for no reason other than to avoid redirects." Amalthea  22:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A great majority of your NOTBROKEN violations are harmful actually. Try actually reading the guideline. You might be surprised to discover that there are at least six explicitly listed reasons not to change (bypass) redirects. One obvious one is that you are whitewashing usage stats - an activity that is at best completely pointless. But more often it's not completely harmless. It's directly harmful because it obscures the need for new articles on topics that aren't covered and it hides more appropriate and thus needed page-moves.
 * How on earth could these violations be "nothing but helpful"? I can't think of a single way that they help. Correcting incorrect titles or misspelled words or redirect like that is one thing, but how does it help anybody if you change horse breaking to horse training (to take a random example from the Derby Stallion article)? It hides the fact that there is no article on horse breaking - a clearly distinct concept from horse training and it reduces the likelihood that anyone will write an article on horse breaking. In what world does that help in any way whatsoever? At very best it's a completely pointless time-wasting activity. And it's one that you have been warned over and over and over again to stop. Does the consensus of your fellow editor on this issue really matter so little to you that you are unwilling to put an end to this distinctly non-helpful activity? Does the possibility that you may get blocked for a 24th (!!!) time mean nothing to you? I hope I'm not overreacting here, but I find your conduct in this one trivial editorial area to be truly incomprehensible. -Thibbs (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been careful to avoid those types of link changes. How is changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3" doing any harm? There is never gonna be a "Playstation 3" article, ever. And in that Derby Stallion article, changing "PlayStation" to "PlayStation (console)" IS directly helpful and needed because the latter refers to the game system called PlayStation and the former refers to the general product line. Or changing links to "Famicom" to be "Nintendo Entertainment System|Famicom", there will never be a separate Famicom article because it's just the Japanese name of the NES. Sometimes I make mistakes (like with the horse breaking one), but I see it as vandalism when editors revert the whole edit instead of just specific link changes they see as bad.  TJ   Spyke   15:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Look I recognize that apart from this one issue (and I guess the 3RR stuff from your past that I think you've mostly stopped now) you are a good editor. And I also recognize that you're human and that you may make mistakes. But seeing as how you've made so many many mistakes in this one particular area I would seriously recommend avoiding it altogether. Just skimming the cleanups you've performed since you were last unblocked, it's apparent that the large majority of the redirect "fixes" you performed were potentially harmful. And a tiny minority of them are helpful in any way.
 * Is there a reason you feel compelled to change the redirects? I assume it's not just to boost your edit count, right? But is it just because it looks ugly on WPCleaner? Or do you really think that this is somehow helpful? If you do think it is helpful then have you considered making the case to change the guidelines at WP:NOTBROKEN? Because there are only 2 listed exceptions to that guideline currently. I wouldn't say that this is a complete list of all good exceptions, though. Your example of changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3", for instance, seems to me to be correcting a misspelling (or really a mis-capitalization). And I think that this is helpful and that it should be listed as an exception to WP:NOTBROKEN.
 * Why don't you and I try to come up with some exceptions that we could propose to the community together to improve the guidelines so that you're not constantly violating them? If you could come up with a reason why changing "video arcade" to "amusement arcade" or how changing "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System" or how changing "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" helps in any way then you could certainly make that suggestion as well. This would be a much much better way of approaching the problem than just ignoring everyone's warnings and getting banned over and over, don't you think? I'd be willing to help draft some proposed changes if you're willing to engage with me and explain why you feel compelled to violate this guideline. -Thibbs (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me (and withe something like the Dragon Quest, it's because the series name in English was Dragon Warrior before the the Dragon Quest VIII. Amusement arcade and video arcade are essentially interchangeable terms like "pop" and "soda". As for Famicom, aren't we supposed to use English names of products if that is the best known name? Famicom is just the Japanese name of the NES, so I would think other WP policies supported changing them to NES). I've never bothered trying to have NOTBROKEN changed because I know from experience how hard it can be to have policies on Wikipedia changed. Maybe later today or something we can start working on this together to propose changes that seem like common sense to most people.  TJ   Spyke   16:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm encouraged by your attitude. I think we should discuss this thoroughly between us here before proposing anything so that we're clear in our arguments. It's OK if we disagree too, since we can propose changes individually to be accepted piecemeal rather than only as a single package. Anyway here are my thoughts on what you've said just above:
 * Like the term "video arcade", the other two are also examples of synonymous terms: Dragon Warrior is the North American term whereas the English term is actually Dragon Quest (the same is true for all European countries and Japan actually); Famicom is the original Japanese name for the NES. According to NOTBROKEN (point 6), the use of a synonymous redirect term provides useful information relating to usage of the term which can be considered as evidence for renaming the article. By systematically changing these links to the current non-redirect title, you are manipulating the usage statistics. As an example: it might be that the term "Dragon Quest" is better known than "Dragon Warrior", but because you'd have changed all of the "Dragon Quest" redirects into "Dragon Warrior," you would have eradicated this information and we would get a false impression that "Dragon Warrior" was the most commonly used term when in reality it was only the most commonly used because the statistics had been manipulated. If you don't like that example, try imagining the reverse. Imagine someone who called the game "Dragon Quest" trying to make the case that the article should be renamed. So first he would change all the links to redirects and then point to the incoming links as evidence that everyone calls it Dragon Quest. You can see how that would be a problem, right? I think what NOTBROKEN is saying is that it's safest if we rely on the real usage statistics by refraining from changing synonymous terms. They are synonyms, after all, so the meaning is identical, right?
 * But I think you might have a point if your central concern was consistency. There have been large discussions in the past regarding whether or not Wikipedia should preferentially use the term "Sega Genesis" or "Master Drive" for example. I'm sure the same could exist for terms from popular consumer products like "Famicom/NES" or "Dragon Quest/Warrior" as well. If there has been a community discussion where one term was decided as the preferred term then I think you could make the case that perhaps it would be a good idea to use a single term in the interest of consistency. Does that sound like it might be the core of your argument for these words? Or do you instead find a problem with NOTBROKEN's argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics?
 * Another redirect dodge I was hoping you could explain is when you changed "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games". These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN's argument that "Shortcuts or redirects to sections of articles ... should never be bypassed, as the section headings on the page may change over time [and] Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links" (point 4; emphasis and ellipses added). So you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions? -Thibbs (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi TJ Spyke. Just checking in again. What's happening now? Why has this conversation stalled? Have you had a chance to read what I just wrote above? I noticed that you've again resumed with the NOTBROKEN violations (swapping "United States of America" for "United States"). I don't think it's too much to ask that you completely refrain from this kind of edit until we've finished discussing our plans for how to present our argument at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. You are violating the guidelines when you make this kind of edit and you've been asked to stop over and over again. Please help me come up with some exceptions that we can present for consensus instead of just continuing to stubbornly violate the guidelines and hope that I'll go away. I won't. I really want to work with you here, but if I see it again I will bring it to AN/I. -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, I didnt do anything wrong with United States. It's the common name of the country and what everyone writes (hell, even the article uses the name) and I know that did NOT violate any rule. Frankly, saying that deleting two words so it uses the common name is wrong, is like saying you can't edit a article to fix a spelling mistake. Might as well freeze all editing. Did I somehow violate it in another article when I changed Major League Baseball to Major League Baseball ? Anyways, i've been busy. But im free now.  TJ   Spyke   15:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Repairing broken wikilinks is not a violation of NOTBROKEN, but changing from one synonymous term (like the official name of a country) to another synonymous term (like the common name for a country) for the same target article is definitely a violation of NOTBROKEN. I don't mean this to sound rude, but you have to accept the fact that your judgment on whether or not a redirect "fix" violates NOTBROKEN is clearly quite poor. I strongly urge you to avoid making those kinds of edits even if you are certain that you're in the right because you are obviously unable to differentiate between violations and non-violations. Anyway I'm glad to hear that you're free now and I'm eager to get to work on the exceptions. -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding Dragon Warrior/Quest, it is not true that Quest was common in European countries. The first game in the series even RELEASED in Europe was Dragon Warrior Monsters in 1999 (where it used "Warrior"), they didnt get another one until Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King (which was when Square Enix FIRST used the "Quest" name outside of Japan). So considering that for almost 20 years the only English name of the series was "Warrior", it makes sense for the ones released with the Warrior name to use that. As for exceptions to NOTBROKEN:


 * I think fixing spelling mistakes and capitalization (i.e. Playstation to PlayStation) are good ones that are not controversial.
 * Hmmm, maybe switching some to the most common name can be OK (though within the right context)
 * Sometimes things will never get an article. I.e. a character who appeared once on a TV show 20 years ago will probably never get an article as they are not notable enough, but they might have an entry in a article about characters from that show. Is it a problem to change a link to that section specifically?
 * If a product is released under one name in most of the world, shouldn't it be OK to write that as the name? I.e. NES/Famicom. Famicom is the Japanese name of the system, but they are still the same system. Doesn't it make sense to change the links to NES? It's especially ridiculous when some articles say a game was released on the NES and Famicom (implying they are different).

Maybe others, but these are off the top of my head.  TJ   Spyke   15:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All PAL versions of the main series are called "Dragon Quest," but that's quite beside the point. The point is that these are synonymous terms and "fixing" them to avoid the redirect violates NOTBROKEN point #6. Unless there has been a discussion leading to a consistency-based preference for one term over the other, the term used by the first European spinoff title has no significance whatsoever and the redirect should not be altered. But this brings me to the question I asked last week:
 * Is switching "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" (or "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System", etc.) something that you have been doing in the interest of inter-article consistency? Is that the core of your argument? Or do you simply reject NOTBROKEN's point #6 (i.e. the argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics)?
 * And as long as I'm re-asking questions from last week,...
 * Could you explain your thought process behind changing "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games"? These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN point #4 (described in last week's comment above). Do you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions?
 * Regarding your exceptions, I agree strongly with the first one (spelling & capitalization). That's definitely going into the final draft of our proposal. I also think that the alteration of redirect terms to reflect a consistent consensus-based terminology (if indeed such a consensus exists) is a good idea. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
 * The other three points you bring up are kind of confusing for me. I don't really think you've presented any argument for making them into exceptions. Basically your reasoning appears to boil down to "Let's make these into exceptions, because why not?" The problem with this is that NOTBROKEN is a consensus-based guideline. Nobody would take us seriously if we proposed exceptions to it without actually giving concrete reasons why the exceptions are needed. The answer to your "is it a problem?" and "shouldn't it be OK?" questions above would be answered by the editors at NOTBROKEN with "Yes it's a problem (see point #4), and no it's not OK (see point #6)." These are consensus-based views on those exact topics.
 * To create an exception we can't just ignore consensus. We have to find a reason that the consensus view is too broad and that in narrowly definable situations the general rules at NOTBROKEN should be excepted. Then we have to convince others based on solid reasoning. If there is no way to distinguish the area to which the rule applies from the area to which the exception applies then we have to propose knocking down part of the rules which will be a much more difficult task and will absolutely require ironclad arguments, not just "why not?" In addition to answering the questions I bulleted above, could you please try to think of specific reasons why we need (or how it would be helpful to have) an exception for common names, obscure aspects, and synonymous terms? -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again TJ Spyke. What is your schedule like? Are you going to have any free time in the next few weeks? I'd like to move forward with our plans regarding the development of a few more exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN. It's been nearly a month since we began talking about this, but if we're to move this forward we have to actually discuss it. I don't want to do this without your help. In fact most of my interest in getting this done is to help editors like you who seem to have problems with the current guidelines. Is this something that still interests you? When will you be available to answer questions like those I asked in the last post? Please don't just leave me hanging here. -Thibbs (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well while I'm waiting for word from you on some kind of timeframe I noticed that you'd performed a few more redirect "fixes" since I last asked you to stop and I can report that I agree most of them. But edits like this and this suggest further exceptions to the rule. From the first of those two links (relinking to the actual page name on a dab page), I think this brings up a good point - that we should add an exception for disambiguation pages per WP:PIPING. The second one (changing a link to a plural term into a link to the singular) looks like just another "fix" for reasons of your own. Can you explain that change? Was there a reason you decided to again violate NOTBROKEN in that case? For all I know there may be policy/guideline supporting that edit but if so then this suggests another good exception. -Thibbs (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and  claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place and second place  both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 16:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

When are you available to discuss the WP:NOTBROKEN exceptions?
Hi again TJ Spyke, sorry to keep bumping your talk page, but I'm concerned that my last post may have gotten lost in the shuffle due to the changes in the message alert banner and since my post is no longer at the bottom of your page. Basically I'm wondering if you intend to continue with our discussions regarding exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN and, if so, I'm wondering when you'll be available to discuss. I'm not really interested in making this into a several-month-long project. Right now we have only a single exception that we both agree on. I've proposed two other based on violative edits of yours that happen to I agree with, and I assume we'd be in agreement on those but I'd like your feedback. I've also suggested that you need to clarify a number of the suggestions you'd made earlier. Do you intend to clarify those or should we just forget about them? I'm perfectly willing to make the proposal to alter the guidelines myself, but considering that you are the one who is constantly violating NOTBROKEN, I'm still hoping that you will be motivated to help me come up with a good set of exceptions. If you don't "buy into" and take some degree of ownership of the proposal yourself then I'm gravely concerned that you'll go back to your egregious violations the moment you think nobody is watching. Please let me know when you will be available to discuss this proposal. -Thibbs (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Tomorrow or Thur should be good for me. I've just been real busy with real life lately (only having a few mins at a time to even come on Wikipedia).  TJ   Spyke   19:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

OK so as I see it we've agreed to the following exception: And based on edits you've made that violate NOTBROKEN but that I agree with I've come up with the following two exceptions that I hope you'll give me input on: Beyond these, you have also suggested exceptions for the following: And you've made recent edits reflecting personal exceptions of your to the following: I don't understand the need for any of these later sets of exceptions and so you can either explain why they are needed/helpful or we can forget about them. In the meanwhile I see that yesterday and today have been busy days for you in terms of further violations of NOTBROKEN (e.g. "Alyattes II" -> "Alyattes of Lydia"; "Battle of Narvik" -> "Battles of Narvik"; "James McDougal" -> "Jim McDougal", etc., etc.) which saddens me. Because I've asked you repeatedly to avoid making these kinds of edits while we're in discussion on this topic and because you've continued to make them in great numbers I hope you can understand my frustration with your behavior. I had really hoped to make this a quick ~1-month discussion but due to your prolonged absences and your flagrant rule violation when you are around, I've decided to drop a note at AN/I. I'm still hopeful that we can discuss this issue and make some of the proposals listed above, but because I'm not as free from now until September I feel as though we need some extra third-party attention on the situation. I hope we can get this situation resolved very quickly. -Thibbs (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Common names
 * Obscure aspects that may never get a full article
 * Synonymous terms that are used more in one country than another
 * Synonymous terms generally
 * Plurals
 * The AN/I thread is here. Feel free to add your thoughts to the thread. -Thibbs (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Well Thursday has come and gone and now Friday is almost over. I'm disappointed that you weren't able to find the time to discuss the proposals any further, and now I see that you've been given an indefinite block. As I said at the AN/I, this wasn't what I had requested but I do understand why the community saw fit to apply this remedy. I am still open to your thoughts on R2D exceptions but I can understand if you wish to end our conversation considering that you are no longer welcome to edit. Either way I do intend to make at least the three proposals listed above. I'm sorry that this whole mess ended the way it did. -Thibbs (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to update you one this, I did make the proposal on my own for the three exceptions we'd come up with, but...
 * The spelling exception was determined not to really be an exception since it's already covered under Wikipedia's general rules regarding correct typography.
 * The "fixing" of disambiguation pages was found to actually violate WP:DABREDIR, and
 * Consistent consensus-based terminology was considered to fit within the penumbra of "other reasons to make the change" from the text of the rule.
 * The first two were quickly taken care of, but the third one took a little discussion and basically the end result was that the wording of WP:NOTBROKEN was changed a bit to clarify what is allowed and what isn't. I know this may come as cold comfort to you under your current editing restrictions, but perhaps it will cheer you to know that the problems that befell you will perhaps serve to help future editors better (more clearly) understand why "fixing" redirects is a mistake. Thanks for working with me a little to come up with the proposal. I do wish you had been more invested in a positive outcome here, but anyway that's all behind us now. Take care. -Thibbs (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

HELP Keep a Social Media War off Wikipedia
There appears to be a Social Media War that has been brought here to Wikipedia, and negative info is being left on the Michelle Borth page that is not necessary. You came to me a few years ago, explaining the boundaries of Wikipedia. Well it appears that they are being broken on Michelle's page. Any input, feedback would help. This little war/argument has gone too far especially now that is being brought to other sites like Wikipedia. This particular user is claiming I have no right to remove the negative info about Michelle, regardless of whether it is true or not, until it is discussed. I feel that if me and this user attempted to discuss, it will get very heated, and you seem to really know ur way, I'd appreciate it Taker22 (talk) 10:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Continual redirect problems by User:TJ Spyke. Thank you. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 23:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're about to be blocked indefinitely. If I were you I'd be pleading my case at ANI. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Ashley Fliehr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Providence High School


 * List of acronyms: W (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to WWF


 * Takeshi's Castle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Fuji

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Question about cleanup process
Hi TJ Spyke, I noticed that you've been cleaning up numerous articles today and I was curious how you were doing it. Is it all by hand or do you use a program? Specifically I'm curious how you check the wikilinks. Are you testing each one individually or is there a tool you have that highlights all redirects? -Thibbs (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I use WPCleaner to check articles, but there are some edits that can't be made with it (like spellchecking, typos, etc.), so I then manually edit it after (essentially, I copy and paste the results from WPCleaner, then continue editing the article).  TJ   Spyke   21:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. Is WPCleaner something that you can download from a Wikimedia site/affiliate or should I just Google it if I want to find it? -Thibbs (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here you go: WPCleaner.  TJ   Spyke   21:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm sorry to say I've reverted your edit at the Derby Stallion article yet again. The links that you are "fixing" are indeed redirect links. And per WP:NOTBROKEN, redirects within an article are not supposed to be changed so that they point to the target article instead. There are a number of reasons why this is harmful to Wikipedia and they're clearly spelled out under WP:NOTBROKEN. This has become a problem in the past with users accidentally abusing the Navigation popup tool to "fix" redirects as you're doing and the result was this page. This is actually the reason I was asking above what tool you were using. I was curious to see what other tools were being subjected to this kind of abuse. The WPCleaner talk page is filled with comments regarding users mistakenly "fixing" redirects (e.g. 1, 2, 3, and many more in the archives from 2008 and earlier). The thing is... I've already explained all of this to you in the past (see e.g. 1 and 2). And I know you are aware of this issue because you have already received a final warning on the subject. So I really don't see how what you are doing could be considered good faith editing. Your editing is contrary to the guidelines and you have been repeatedly told this and warned to stop. Normally I'd suggest trying to get the guidelines changed before carrying on in this way, but in this case from your block log it's clear to me that you've consciously decided to change matters unilaterally rather than by seeking consensus. For this reason I've requested administrative action. -Thibbs (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, you did not read NOTBROKEN correctly at all. I have not been making the kinds of edits that got me into trouble before, I have been careful to only makes ones that follow the guidelines. I am sorry that you are not a good editor and dont like others making articles better, but stop vandalizing pages by reverting good edits. I am hesitant to give you a warning, but I will. Frankly, its people like you who are driving editors away from Wikipedia and preventing so many articles from being improved. Go away.  TJ   Spyke   00:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't react like this to new editors. I react this way to editors who have been editing here for 7-odd years and are among the top 400 most prolific editors and who have received a shocking number of warnings and frank blocks including an indef block. You obviously know better than to persist in these games but yet you continue. AGF only extends so far. You clearly have no regard for community guidelines founded on consensus and are only interested in your own editorial decisions. I'm sorry that you decided to take this route. It was a very poor decision on your part. -Thibbs (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, to Derby Stallion (series) is full of unhelpful changes as per WP:NOTBROKEN.  Amalthea  09:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, I see no unhelpful edits. I will not pretend 100% of my edits have been helpful, but ask any average editor and that change is nothing but helpful. And frankly, you shouldnt drive away good editors since fewer and fewer people are editing Wikipedia now. I also notice that I only get hounded when I mass edit articles, I dont get harassed when I only edit a few articles a day.  TJ   Spyke   20:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "It is likewise unhelpful to edit visible links for no reason other than to avoid redirects." Amalthea  22:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A great majority of your NOTBROKEN violations are harmful actually. Try actually reading the guideline. You might be surprised to discover that there are at least six explicitly listed reasons not to change (bypass) redirects. One obvious one is that you are whitewashing usage stats - an activity that is at best completely pointless. But more often it's not completely harmless. It's directly harmful because it obscures the need for new articles on topics that aren't covered and it hides more appropriate and thus needed page-moves.
 * How on earth could these violations be "nothing but helpful"? I can't think of a single way that they help. Correcting incorrect titles or misspelled words or redirect like that is one thing, but how does it help anybody if you change horse breaking to horse training (to take a random example from the Derby Stallion article)? It hides the fact that there is no article on horse breaking - a clearly distinct concept from horse training and it reduces the likelihood that anyone will write an article on horse breaking. In what world does that help in any way whatsoever? At very best it's a completely pointless time-wasting activity. And it's one that you have been warned over and over and over again to stop. Does the consensus of your fellow editor on this issue really matter so little to you that you are unwilling to put an end to this distinctly non-helpful activity? Does the possibility that you may get blocked for a 24th (!!!) time mean nothing to you? I hope I'm not overreacting here, but I find your conduct in this one trivial editorial area to be truly incomprehensible. -Thibbs (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been careful to avoid those types of link changes. How is changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3" doing any harm? There is never gonna be a "Playstation 3" article, ever. And in that Derby Stallion article, changing "PlayStation" to "PlayStation (console)" IS directly helpful and needed because the latter refers to the game system called PlayStation and the former refers to the general product line. Or changing links to "Famicom" to be "Nintendo Entertainment System|Famicom", there will never be a separate Famicom article because it's just the Japanese name of the NES. Sometimes I make mistakes (like with the horse breaking one), but I see it as vandalism when editors revert the whole edit instead of just specific link changes they see as bad.  TJ   Spyke   15:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Look I recognize that apart from this one issue (and I guess the 3RR stuff from your past that I think you've mostly stopped now) you are a good editor. And I also recognize that you're human and that you may make mistakes. But seeing as how you've made so many many mistakes in this one particular area I would seriously recommend avoiding it altogether. Just skimming the cleanups you've performed since you were last unblocked, it's apparent that the large majority of the redirect "fixes" you performed were potentially harmful. And a tiny minority of them are helpful in any way.
 * Is there a reason you feel compelled to change the redirects? I assume it's not just to boost your edit count, right? But is it just because it looks ugly on WPCleaner? Or do you really think that this is somehow helpful? If you do think it is helpful then have you considered making the case to change the guidelines at WP:NOTBROKEN? Because there are only 2 listed exceptions to that guideline currently. I wouldn't say that this is a complete list of all good exceptions, though. Your example of changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3", for instance, seems to me to be correcting a misspelling (or really a mis-capitalization). And I think that this is helpful and that it should be listed as an exception to WP:NOTBROKEN.
 * Why don't you and I try to come up with some exceptions that we could propose to the community together to improve the guidelines so that you're not constantly violating them? If you could come up with a reason why changing "video arcade" to "amusement arcade" or how changing "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System" or how changing "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" helps in any way then you could certainly make that suggestion as well. This would be a much much better way of approaching the problem than just ignoring everyone's warnings and getting banned over and over, don't you think? I'd be willing to help draft some proposed changes if you're willing to engage with me and explain why you feel compelled to violate this guideline. -Thibbs (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me (and withe something like the Dragon Quest, it's because the series name in English was Dragon Warrior before the the Dragon Quest VIII. Amusement arcade and video arcade are essentially interchangeable terms like "pop" and "soda". As for Famicom, aren't we supposed to use English names of products if that is the best known name? Famicom is just the Japanese name of the NES, so I would think other WP policies supported changing them to NES). I've never bothered trying to have NOTBROKEN changed because I know from experience how hard it can be to have policies on Wikipedia changed. Maybe later today or something we can start working on this together to propose changes that seem like common sense to most people.  TJ   Spyke   16:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm encouraged by your attitude. I think we should discuss this thoroughly between us here before proposing anything so that we're clear in our arguments. It's OK if we disagree too, since we can propose changes individually to be accepted piecemeal rather than only as a single package. Anyway here are my thoughts on what you've said just above:
 * Like the term "video arcade", the other two are also examples of synonymous terms: Dragon Warrior is the North American term whereas the English term is actually Dragon Quest (the same is true for all European countries and Japan actually); Famicom is the original Japanese name for the NES. According to NOTBROKEN (point 6), the use of a synonymous redirect term provides useful information relating to usage of the term which can be considered as evidence for renaming the article. By systematically changing these links to the current non-redirect title, you are manipulating the usage statistics. As an example: it might be that the term "Dragon Quest" is better known than "Dragon Warrior", but because you'd have changed all of the "Dragon Quest" redirects into "Dragon Warrior," you would have eradicated this information and we would get a false impression that "Dragon Warrior" was the most commonly used term when in reality it was only the most commonly used because the statistics had been manipulated. If you don't like that example, try imagining the reverse. Imagine someone who called the game "Dragon Quest" trying to make the case that the article should be renamed. So first he would change all the links to redirects and then point to the incoming links as evidence that everyone calls it Dragon Quest. You can see how that would be a problem, right? I think what NOTBROKEN is saying is that it's safest if we rely on the real usage statistics by refraining from changing synonymous terms. They are synonyms, after all, so the meaning is identical, right?
 * But I think you might have a point if your central concern was consistency. There have been large discussions in the past regarding whether or not Wikipedia should preferentially use the term "Sega Genesis" or "Master Drive" for example. I'm sure the same could exist for terms from popular consumer products like "Famicom/NES" or "Dragon Quest/Warrior" as well. If there has been a community discussion where one term was decided as the preferred term then I think you could make the case that perhaps it would be a good idea to use a single term in the interest of consistency. Does that sound like it might be the core of your argument for these words? Or do you instead find a problem with NOTBROKEN's argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics?
 * Another redirect dodge I was hoping you could explain is when you changed "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games". These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN's argument that "Shortcuts or redirects to sections of articles ... should never be bypassed, as the section headings on the page may change over time [and] Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links" (point 4; emphasis and ellipses added). So you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions? -Thibbs (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi TJ Spyke. Just checking in again. What's happening now? Why has this conversation stalled? Have you had a chance to read what I just wrote above? I noticed that you've again resumed with the NOTBROKEN violations (swapping "United States of America" for "United States"). I don't think it's too much to ask that you completely refrain from this kind of edit until we've finished discussing our plans for how to present our argument at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. You are violating the guidelines when you make this kind of edit and you've been asked to stop over and over again. Please help me come up with some exceptions that we can present for consensus instead of just continuing to stubbornly violate the guidelines and hope that I'll go away. I won't. I really want to work with you here, but if I see it again I will bring it to AN/I. -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, I didnt do anything wrong with United States. It's the common name of the country and what everyone writes (hell, even the article uses the name) and I know that did NOT violate any rule. Frankly, saying that deleting two words so it uses the common name is wrong, is like saying you can't edit a article to fix a spelling mistake. Might as well freeze all editing. Did I somehow violate it in another article when I changed Major League Baseball to Major League Baseball ? Anyways, i've been busy. But im free now.  TJ   Spyke   15:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Repairing broken wikilinks is not a violation of NOTBROKEN, but changing from one synonymous term (like the official name of a country) to another synonymous term (like the common name for a country) for the same target article is definitely a violation of NOTBROKEN. I don't mean this to sound rude, but you have to accept the fact that your judgment on whether or not a redirect "fix" violates NOTBROKEN is clearly quite poor. I strongly urge you to avoid making those kinds of edits even if you are certain that you're in the right because you are obviously unable to differentiate between violations and non-violations. Anyway I'm glad to hear that you're free now and I'm eager to get to work on the exceptions. -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding Dragon Warrior/Quest, it is not true that Quest was common in European countries. The first game in the series even RELEASED in Europe was Dragon Warrior Monsters in 1999 (where it used "Warrior"), they didnt get another one until Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King (which was when Square Enix FIRST used the "Quest" name outside of Japan). So considering that for almost 20 years the only English name of the series was "Warrior", it makes sense for the ones released with the Warrior name to use that. As for exceptions to NOTBROKEN:


 * I think fixing spelling mistakes and capitalization (i.e. Playstation to PlayStation) are good ones that are not controversial.
 * Hmmm, maybe switching some to the most common name can be OK (though within the right context)
 * Sometimes things will never get an article. I.e. a character who appeared once on a TV show 20 years ago will probably never get an article as they are not notable enough, but they might have an entry in a article about characters from that show. Is it a problem to change a link to that section specifically?
 * If a product is released under one name in most of the world, shouldn't it be OK to write that as the name? I.e. NES/Famicom. Famicom is the Japanese name of the system, but they are still the same system. Doesn't it make sense to change the links to NES? It's especially ridiculous when some articles say a game was released on the NES and Famicom (implying they are different).

Maybe others, but these are off the top of my head.  TJ   Spyke   15:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All PAL versions of the main series are called "Dragon Quest," but that's quite beside the point. The point is that these are synonymous terms and "fixing" them to avoid the redirect violates NOTBROKEN point #6. Unless there has been a discussion leading to a consistency-based preference for one term over the other, the term used by the first European spinoff title has no significance whatsoever and the redirect should not be altered. But this brings me to the question I asked last week:
 * Is switching "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" (or "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System", etc.) something that you have been doing in the interest of inter-article consistency? Is that the core of your argument? Or do you simply reject NOTBROKEN's point #6 (i.e. the argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics)?
 * And as long as I'm re-asking questions from last week,...
 * Could you explain your thought process behind changing "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games"? These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN point #4 (described in last week's comment above). Do you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions?
 * Regarding your exceptions, I agree strongly with the first one (spelling & capitalization). That's definitely going into the final draft of our proposal. I also think that the alteration of redirect terms to reflect a consistent consensus-based terminology (if indeed such a consensus exists) is a good idea. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
 * The other three points you bring up are kind of confusing for me. I don't really think you've presented any argument for making them into exceptions. Basically your reasoning appears to boil down to "Let's make these into exceptions, because why not?" The problem with this is that NOTBROKEN is a consensus-based guideline. Nobody would take us seriously if we proposed exceptions to it without actually giving concrete reasons why the exceptions are needed. The answer to your "is it a problem?" and "shouldn't it be OK?" questions above would be answered by the editors at NOTBROKEN with "Yes it's a problem (see point #4), and no it's not OK (see point #6)." These are consensus-based views on those exact topics.
 * To create an exception we can't just ignore consensus. We have to find a reason that the consensus view is too broad and that in narrowly definable situations the general rules at NOTBROKEN should be excepted. Then we have to convince others based on solid reasoning. If there is no way to distinguish the area to which the rule applies from the area to which the exception applies then we have to propose knocking down part of the rules which will be a much more difficult task and will absolutely require ironclad arguments, not just "why not?" In addition to answering the questions I bulleted above, could you please try to think of specific reasons why we need (or how it would be helpful to have) an exception for common names, obscure aspects, and synonymous terms? -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again TJ Spyke. What is your schedule like? Are you going to have any free time in the next few weeks? I'd like to move forward with our plans regarding the development of a few more exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN. It's been nearly a month since we began talking about this, but if we're to move this forward we have to actually discuss it. I don't want to do this without your help. In fact most of my interest in getting this done is to help editors like you who seem to have problems with the current guidelines. Is this something that still interests you? When will you be available to answer questions like those I asked in the last post? Please don't just leave me hanging here. -Thibbs (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well while I'm waiting for word from you on some kind of timeframe I noticed that you'd performed a few more redirect "fixes" since I last asked you to stop and I can report that I agree most of them. But edits like this and this suggest further exceptions to the rule. From the first of those two links (relinking to the actual page name on a dab page), I think this brings up a good point - that we should add an exception for disambiguation pages per WP:PIPING. The second one (changing a link to a plural term into a link to the singular) looks like just another "fix" for reasons of your own. Can you explain that change? Was there a reason you decided to again violate NOTBROKEN in that case? For all I know there may be policy/guideline supporting that edit but if so then this suggests another good exception. -Thibbs (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and  claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place and second place  both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 16:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

When are you available to discuss the WP:NOTBROKEN exceptions?
Hi again TJ Spyke, sorry to keep bumping your talk page, but I'm concerned that my last post may have gotten lost in the shuffle due to the changes in the message alert banner and since my post is no longer at the bottom of your page. Basically I'm wondering if you intend to continue with our discussions regarding exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN and, if so, I'm wondering when you'll be available to discuss. I'm not really interested in making this into a several-month-long project. Right now we have only a single exception that we both agree on. I've proposed two other based on violative edits of yours that happen to I agree with, and I assume we'd be in agreement on those but I'd like your feedback. I've also suggested that you need to clarify a number of the suggestions you'd made earlier. Do you intend to clarify those or should we just forget about them? I'm perfectly willing to make the proposal to alter the guidelines myself, but considering that you are the one who is constantly violating NOTBROKEN, I'm still hoping that you will be motivated to help me come up with a good set of exceptions. If you don't "buy into" and take some degree of ownership of the proposal yourself then I'm gravely concerned that you'll go back to your egregious violations the moment you think nobody is watching. Please let me know when you will be available to discuss this proposal. -Thibbs (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Tomorrow or Thur should be good for me. I've just been real busy with real life lately (only having a few mins at a time to even come on Wikipedia).  TJ   Spyke   19:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

OK so as I see it we've agreed to the following exception: And based on edits you've made that violate NOTBROKEN but that I agree with I've come up with the following two exceptions that I hope you'll give me input on: Beyond these, you have also suggested exceptions for the following: And you've made recent edits reflecting personal exceptions of your to the following: I don't understand the need for any of these later sets of exceptions and so you can either explain why they are needed/helpful or we can forget about them. In the meanwhile I see that yesterday and today have been busy days for you in terms of further violations of NOTBROKEN (e.g. "Alyattes II" -> "Alyattes of Lydia"; "Battle of Narvik" -> "Battles of Narvik"; "James McDougal" -> "Jim McDougal", etc., etc.) which saddens me. Because I've asked you repeatedly to avoid making these kinds of edits while we're in discussion on this topic and because you've continued to make them in great numbers I hope you can understand my frustration with your behavior. I had really hoped to make this a quick ~1-month discussion but due to your prolonged absences and your flagrant rule violation when you are around, I've decided to drop a note at AN/I. I'm still hopeful that we can discuss this issue and make some of the proposals listed above, but because I'm not as free from now until September I feel as though we need some extra third-party attention on the situation. I hope we can get this situation resolved very quickly. -Thibbs (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Common names
 * Obscure aspects that may never get a full article
 * Synonymous terms that are used more in one country than another
 * Synonymous terms generally
 * Plurals
 * The AN/I thread is here. Feel free to add your thoughts to the thread. -Thibbs (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Well Thursday has come and gone and now Friday is almost over. I'm disappointed that you weren't able to find the time to discuss the proposals any further, and now I see that you've been given an indefinite block. As I said at the AN/I, this wasn't what I had requested but I do understand why the community saw fit to apply this remedy. I am still open to your thoughts on R2D exceptions but I can understand if you wish to end our conversation considering that you are no longer welcome to edit. Either way I do intend to make at least the three proposals listed above. I'm sorry that this whole mess ended the way it did. -Thibbs (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to update you one this, I did make the proposal on my own for the three exceptions we'd come up with, but...
 * The spelling exception was determined not to really be an exception since it's already covered under Wikipedia's general rules regarding correct typography.
 * The "fixing" of disambiguation pages was found to actually violate WP:DABREDIR, and
 * Consistent consensus-based terminology was considered to fit within the penumbra of "other reasons to make the change" from the text of the rule.
 * The first two were quickly taken care of, but the third one took a little discussion and basically the end result was that the wording of WP:NOTBROKEN was changed a bit to clarify what is allowed and what isn't. I know this may come as cold comfort to you under your current editing restrictions, but perhaps it will cheer you to know that the problems that befell you will perhaps serve to help future editors better (more clearly) understand why "fixing" redirects is a mistake. Thanks for working with me a little to come up with the proposal. I do wish you had been more invested in a positive outcome here, but anyway that's all behind us now. Take care. -Thibbs (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

HELP Keep a Social Media War off Wikipedia
There appears to be a Social Media War that has been brought here to Wikipedia, and negative info is being left on the Michelle Borth page that is not necessary. You came to me a few years ago, explaining the boundaries of Wikipedia. Well it appears that they are being broken on Michelle's page. Any input, feedback would help. This little war/argument has gone too far especially now that is being brought to other sites like Wikipedia. This particular user is claiming I have no right to remove the negative info about Michelle, regardless of whether it is true or not, until it is discussed. I feel that if me and this user attempted to discuss, it will get very heated, and you seem to really know ur way, I'd appreciate it Taker22 (talk) 10:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Continual redirect problems by User:TJ Spyke. Thank you. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 23:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're about to be blocked indefinitely. If I were you I'd be pleading my case at ANI. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 96.JPG)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 96.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:GAB 97.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:GAB 97.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter
We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate  (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr, on the European hare , on the constellation Circinus ( and ) and on the Third Epistle of John. All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Ashley Fliehr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Providence High School


 * List of acronyms: W (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to WWF


 * Takeshi's Castle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Fuji

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Question about cleanup process
Hi TJ Spyke, I noticed that you've been cleaning up numerous articles today and I was curious how you were doing it. Is it all by hand or do you use a program? Specifically I'm curious how you check the wikilinks. Are you testing each one individually or is there a tool you have that highlights all redirects? -Thibbs (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I use WPCleaner to check articles, but there are some edits that can't be made with it (like spellchecking, typos, etc.), so I then manually edit it after (essentially, I copy and paste the results from WPCleaner, then continue editing the article).  TJ   Spyke   21:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. Is WPCleaner something that you can download from a Wikimedia site/affiliate or should I just Google it if I want to find it? -Thibbs (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here you go: WPCleaner.  TJ   Spyke   21:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm sorry to say I've reverted your edit at the Derby Stallion article yet again. The links that you are "fixing" are indeed redirect links. And per WP:NOTBROKEN, redirects within an article are not supposed to be changed so that they point to the target article instead. There are a number of reasons why this is harmful to Wikipedia and they're clearly spelled out under WP:NOTBROKEN. This has become a problem in the past with users accidentally abusing the Navigation popup tool to "fix" redirects as you're doing and the result was this page. This is actually the reason I was asking above what tool you were using. I was curious to see what other tools were being subjected to this kind of abuse. The WPCleaner talk page is filled with comments regarding users mistakenly "fixing" redirects (e.g. 1, 2, 3, and many more in the archives from 2008 and earlier). The thing is... I've already explained all of this to you in the past (see e.g. 1 and 2). And I know you are aware of this issue because you have already received a final warning on the subject. So I really don't see how what you are doing could be considered good faith editing. Your editing is contrary to the guidelines and you have been repeatedly told this and warned to stop. Normally I'd suggest trying to get the guidelines changed before carrying on in this way, but in this case from your block log it's clear to me that you've consciously decided to change matters unilaterally rather than by seeking consensus. For this reason I've requested administrative action. -Thibbs (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, you did not read NOTBROKEN correctly at all. I have not been making the kinds of edits that got me into trouble before, I have been careful to only makes ones that follow the guidelines. I am sorry that you are not a good editor and dont like others making articles better, but stop vandalizing pages by reverting good edits. I am hesitant to give you a warning, but I will. Frankly, its people like you who are driving editors away from Wikipedia and preventing so many articles from being improved. Go away.  TJ   Spyke   00:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't react like this to new editors. I react this way to editors who have been editing here for 7-odd years and are among the top 400 most prolific editors and who have received a shocking number of warnings and frank blocks including an indef block. You obviously know better than to persist in these games but yet you continue. AGF only extends so far. You clearly have no regard for community guidelines founded on consensus and are only interested in your own editorial decisions. I'm sorry that you decided to take this route. It was a very poor decision on your part. -Thibbs (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, to Derby Stallion (series) is full of unhelpful changes as per WP:NOTBROKEN.  Amalthea  09:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, I see no unhelpful edits. I will not pretend 100% of my edits have been helpful, but ask any average editor and that change is nothing but helpful. And frankly, you shouldnt drive away good editors since fewer and fewer people are editing Wikipedia now. I also notice that I only get hounded when I mass edit articles, I dont get harassed when I only edit a few articles a day.  TJ   Spyke   20:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "It is likewise unhelpful to edit visible links for no reason other than to avoid redirects." Amalthea  22:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A great majority of your NOTBROKEN violations are harmful actually. Try actually reading the guideline. You might be surprised to discover that there are at least six explicitly listed reasons not to change (bypass) redirects. One obvious one is that you are whitewashing usage stats - an activity that is at best completely pointless. But more often it's not completely harmless. It's directly harmful because it obscures the need for new articles on topics that aren't covered and it hides more appropriate and thus needed page-moves.
 * How on earth could these violations be "nothing but helpful"? I can't think of a single way that they help. Correcting incorrect titles or misspelled words or redirect like that is one thing, but how does it help anybody if you change horse breaking to horse training (to take a random example from the Derby Stallion article)? It hides the fact that there is no article on horse breaking - a clearly distinct concept from horse training and it reduces the likelihood that anyone will write an article on horse breaking. In what world does that help in any way whatsoever? At very best it's a completely pointless time-wasting activity. And it's one that you have been warned over and over and over again to stop. Does the consensus of your fellow editor on this issue really matter so little to you that you are unwilling to put an end to this distinctly non-helpful activity? Does the possibility that you may get blocked for a 24th (!!!) time mean nothing to you? I hope I'm not overreacting here, but I find your conduct in this one trivial editorial area to be truly incomprehensible. -Thibbs (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been careful to avoid those types of link changes. How is changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3" doing any harm? There is never gonna be a "Playstation 3" article, ever. And in that Derby Stallion article, changing "PlayStation" to "PlayStation (console)" IS directly helpful and needed because the latter refers to the game system called PlayStation and the former refers to the general product line. Or changing links to "Famicom" to be "Nintendo Entertainment System|Famicom", there will never be a separate Famicom article because it's just the Japanese name of the NES. Sometimes I make mistakes (like with the horse breaking one), but I see it as vandalism when editors revert the whole edit instead of just specific link changes they see as bad.  TJ   Spyke   15:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Look I recognize that apart from this one issue (and I guess the 3RR stuff from your past that I think you've mostly stopped now) you are a good editor. And I also recognize that you're human and that you may make mistakes. But seeing as how you've made so many many mistakes in this one particular area I would seriously recommend avoiding it altogether. Just skimming the cleanups you've performed since you were last unblocked, it's apparent that the large majority of the redirect "fixes" you performed were potentially harmful. And a tiny minority of them are helpful in any way.
 * Is there a reason you feel compelled to change the redirects? I assume it's not just to boost your edit count, right? But is it just because it looks ugly on WPCleaner? Or do you really think that this is somehow helpful? If you do think it is helpful then have you considered making the case to change the guidelines at WP:NOTBROKEN? Because there are only 2 listed exceptions to that guideline currently. I wouldn't say that this is a complete list of all good exceptions, though. Your example of changing "Playstation 3" to "PlayStation 3", for instance, seems to me to be correcting a misspelling (or really a mis-capitalization). And I think that this is helpful and that it should be listed as an exception to WP:NOTBROKEN.
 * Why don't you and I try to come up with some exceptions that we could propose to the community together to improve the guidelines so that you're not constantly violating them? If you could come up with a reason why changing "video arcade" to "amusement arcade" or how changing "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System" or how changing "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" helps in any way then you could certainly make that suggestion as well. This would be a much much better way of approaching the problem than just ignoring everyone's warnings and getting banned over and over, don't you think? I'd be willing to help draft some proposed changes if you're willing to engage with me and explain why you feel compelled to violate this guideline. -Thibbs (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me (and withe something like the Dragon Quest, it's because the series name in English was Dragon Warrior before the the Dragon Quest VIII. Amusement arcade and video arcade are essentially interchangeable terms like "pop" and "soda". As for Famicom, aren't we supposed to use English names of products if that is the best known name? Famicom is just the Japanese name of the NES, so I would think other WP policies supported changing them to NES). I've never bothered trying to have NOTBROKEN changed because I know from experience how hard it can be to have policies on Wikipedia changed. Maybe later today or something we can start working on this together to propose changes that seem like common sense to most people.  TJ   Spyke   16:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm encouraged by your attitude. I think we should discuss this thoroughly between us here before proposing anything so that we're clear in our arguments. It's OK if we disagree too, since we can propose changes individually to be accepted piecemeal rather than only as a single package. Anyway here are my thoughts on what you've said just above:
 * Like the term "video arcade", the other two are also examples of synonymous terms: Dragon Warrior is the North American term whereas the English term is actually Dragon Quest (the same is true for all European countries and Japan actually); Famicom is the original Japanese name for the NES. According to NOTBROKEN (point 6), the use of a synonymous redirect term provides useful information relating to usage of the term which can be considered as evidence for renaming the article. By systematically changing these links to the current non-redirect title, you are manipulating the usage statistics. As an example: it might be that the term "Dragon Quest" is better known than "Dragon Warrior", but because you'd have changed all of the "Dragon Quest" redirects into "Dragon Warrior," you would have eradicated this information and we would get a false impression that "Dragon Warrior" was the most commonly used term when in reality it was only the most commonly used because the statistics had been manipulated. If you don't like that example, try imagining the reverse. Imagine someone who called the game "Dragon Quest" trying to make the case that the article should be renamed. So first he would change all the links to redirects and then point to the incoming links as evidence that everyone calls it Dragon Quest. You can see how that would be a problem, right? I think what NOTBROKEN is saying is that it's safest if we rely on the real usage statistics by refraining from changing synonymous terms. They are synonyms, after all, so the meaning is identical, right?
 * But I think you might have a point if your central concern was consistency. There have been large discussions in the past regarding whether or not Wikipedia should preferentially use the term "Sega Genesis" or "Master Drive" for example. I'm sure the same could exist for terms from popular consumer products like "Famicom/NES" or "Dragon Quest/Warrior" as well. If there has been a community discussion where one term was decided as the preferred term then I think you could make the case that perhaps it would be a good idea to use a single term in the interest of consistency. Does that sound like it might be the core of your argument for these words? Or do you instead find a problem with NOTBROKEN's argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics?
 * Another redirect dodge I was hoping you could explain is when you changed "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games". These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN's argument that "Shortcuts or redirects to sections of articles ... should never be bypassed, as the section headings on the page may change over time [and] Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links" (point 4; emphasis and ellipses added). So you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions? -Thibbs (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi TJ Spyke. Just checking in again. What's happening now? Why has this conversation stalled? Have you had a chance to read what I just wrote above? I noticed that you've again resumed with the NOTBROKEN violations (swapping "United States of America" for "United States"). I don't think it's too much to ask that you completely refrain from this kind of edit until we've finished discussing our plans for how to present our argument at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. You are violating the guidelines when you make this kind of edit and you've been asked to stop over and over again. Please help me come up with some exceptions that we can present for consensus instead of just continuing to stubbornly violate the guidelines and hope that I'll go away. I won't. I really want to work with you here, but if I see it again I will bring it to AN/I. -Thibbs (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, I didnt do anything wrong with United States. It's the common name of the country and what everyone writes (hell, even the article uses the name) and I know that did NOT violate any rule. Frankly, saying that deleting two words so it uses the common name is wrong, is like saying you can't edit a article to fix a spelling mistake. Might as well freeze all editing. Did I somehow violate it in another article when I changed Major League Baseball to Major League Baseball ? Anyways, i've been busy. But im free now.  TJ   Spyke   15:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Repairing broken wikilinks is not a violation of NOTBROKEN, but changing from one synonymous term (like the official name of a country) to another synonymous term (like the common name for a country) for the same target article is definitely a violation of NOTBROKEN. I don't mean this to sound rude, but you have to accept the fact that your judgment on whether or not a redirect "fix" violates NOTBROKEN is clearly quite poor. I strongly urge you to avoid making those kinds of edits even if you are certain that you're in the right because you are obviously unable to differentiate between violations and non-violations. Anyway I'm glad to hear that you're free now and I'm eager to get to work on the exceptions. -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding Dragon Warrior/Quest, it is not true that Quest was common in European countries. The first game in the series even RELEASED in Europe was Dragon Warrior Monsters in 1999 (where it used "Warrior"), they didnt get another one until Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King (which was when Square Enix FIRST used the "Quest" name outside of Japan). So considering that for almost 20 years the only English name of the series was "Warrior", it makes sense for the ones released with the Warrior name to use that. As for exceptions to NOTBROKEN:


 * I think fixing spelling mistakes and capitalization (i.e. Playstation to PlayStation) are good ones that are not controversial.
 * Hmmm, maybe switching some to the most common name can be OK (though within the right context)
 * Sometimes things will never get an article. I.e. a character who appeared once on a TV show 20 years ago will probably never get an article as they are not notable enough, but they might have an entry in a article about characters from that show. Is it a problem to change a link to that section specifically?
 * If a product is released under one name in most of the world, shouldn't it be OK to write that as the name? I.e. NES/Famicom. Famicom is the Japanese name of the system, but they are still the same system. Doesn't it make sense to change the links to NES? It's especially ridiculous when some articles say a game was released on the NES and Famicom (implying they are different).

Maybe others, but these are off the top of my head.  TJ   Spyke   15:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All PAL versions of the main series are called "Dragon Quest," but that's quite beside the point. The point is that these are synonymous terms and "fixing" them to avoid the redirect violates NOTBROKEN point #6. Unless there has been a discussion leading to a consistency-based preference for one term over the other, the term used by the first European spinoff title has no significance whatsoever and the redirect should not be altered. But this brings me to the question I asked last week:
 * Is switching "Dragon Quest" to "Dragon Warrior" (or "Famicom" to "Nintendo Entertainment System", etc.) something that you have been doing in the interest of inter-article consistency? Is that the core of your argument? Or do you simply reject NOTBROKEN's point #6 (i.e. the argument based on the dangers of manipulating usage statistics)?
 * And as long as I'm re-asking questions from last week,...
 * Could you explain your thought process behind changing "Run and gun (video game)" to "Shoot 'em up#Run and gun" and "Metroidvania" to "Platform game#Platform-adventure_games"? These redirects seem to directly conflict with NOTBROKEN point #4 (described in last week's comment above). Do you you think this part of NOTBROKEN should be removed/altered, or were these edits intended as exceptions which we could add to the list of exceptions?
 * Regarding your exceptions, I agree strongly with the first one (spelling & capitalization). That's definitely going into the final draft of our proposal. I also think that the alteration of redirect terms to reflect a consistent consensus-based terminology (if indeed such a consensus exists) is a good idea. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
 * The other three points you bring up are kind of confusing for me. I don't really think you've presented any argument for making them into exceptions. Basically your reasoning appears to boil down to "Let's make these into exceptions, because why not?" The problem with this is that NOTBROKEN is a consensus-based guideline. Nobody would take us seriously if we proposed exceptions to it without actually giving concrete reasons why the exceptions are needed. The answer to your "is it a problem?" and "shouldn't it be OK?" questions above would be answered by the editors at NOTBROKEN with "Yes it's a problem (see point #4), and no it's not OK (see point #6)." These are consensus-based views on those exact topics.
 * To create an exception we can't just ignore consensus. We have to find a reason that the consensus view is too broad and that in narrowly definable situations the general rules at NOTBROKEN should be excepted. Then we have to convince others based on solid reasoning. If there is no way to distinguish the area to which the rule applies from the area to which the exception applies then we have to propose knocking down part of the rules which will be a much more difficult task and will absolutely require ironclad arguments, not just "why not?" In addition to answering the questions I bulleted above, could you please try to think of specific reasons why we need (or how it would be helpful to have) an exception for common names, obscure aspects, and synonymous terms? -Thibbs (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again TJ Spyke. What is your schedule like? Are you going to have any free time in the next few weeks? I'd like to move forward with our plans regarding the development of a few more exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN. It's been nearly a month since we began talking about this, but if we're to move this forward we have to actually discuss it. I don't want to do this without your help. In fact most of my interest in getting this done is to help editors like you who seem to have problems with the current guidelines. Is this something that still interests you? When will you be available to answer questions like those I asked in the last post? Please don't just leave me hanging here. -Thibbs (talk) 12:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well while I'm waiting for word from you on some kind of timeframe I noticed that you'd performed a few more redirect "fixes" since I last asked you to stop and I can report that I agree most of them. But edits like this and this suggest further exceptions to the rule. From the first of those two links (relinking to the actual page name on a dab page), I think this brings up a good point - that we should add an exception for disambiguation pages per WP:PIPING. The second one (changing a link to a plural term into a link to the singular) looks like just another "fix" for reasons of your own. Can you explain that change? Was there a reason you decided to again violate NOTBROKEN in that case? For all I know there may be policy/guideline supporting that edit but if so then this suggests another good exception. -Thibbs (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and  claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place and second place  both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 16:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

When are you available to discuss the WP:NOTBROKEN exceptions?
Hi again TJ Spyke, sorry to keep bumping your talk page, but I'm concerned that my last post may have gotten lost in the shuffle due to the changes in the message alert banner and since my post is no longer at the bottom of your page. Basically I'm wondering if you intend to continue with our discussions regarding exceptions to WP:NOTBROKEN and, if so, I'm wondering when you'll be available to discuss. I'm not really interested in making this into a several-month-long project. Right now we have only a single exception that we both agree on. I've proposed two other based on violative edits of yours that happen to I agree with, and I assume we'd be in agreement on those but I'd like your feedback. I've also suggested that you need to clarify a number of the suggestions you'd made earlier. Do you intend to clarify those or should we just forget about them? I'm perfectly willing to make the proposal to alter the guidelines myself, but considering that you are the one who is constantly violating NOTBROKEN, I'm still hoping that you will be motivated to help me come up with a good set of exceptions. If you don't "buy into" and take some degree of ownership of the proposal yourself then I'm gravely concerned that you'll go back to your egregious violations the moment you think nobody is watching. Please let me know when you will be available to discuss this proposal. -Thibbs (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Tomorrow or Thur should be good for me. I've just been real busy with real life lately (only having a few mins at a time to even come on Wikipedia).  TJ   Spyke   19:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

OK so as I see it we've agreed to the following exception: And based on edits you've made that violate NOTBROKEN but that I agree with I've come up with the following two exceptions that I hope you'll give me input on: Beyond these, you have also suggested exceptions for the following: And you've made recent edits reflecting personal exceptions of your to the following: I don't understand the need for any of these later sets of exceptions and so you can either explain why they are needed/helpful or we can forget about them. In the meanwhile I see that yesterday and today have been busy days for you in terms of further violations of NOTBROKEN (e.g. "Alyattes II" -> "Alyattes of Lydia"; "Battle of Narvik" -> "Battles of Narvik"; "James McDougal" -> "Jim McDougal", etc., etc.) which saddens me. Because I've asked you repeatedly to avoid making these kinds of edits while we're in discussion on this topic and because you've continued to make them in great numbers I hope you can understand my frustration with your behavior. I had really hoped to make this a quick ~1-month discussion but due to your prolonged absences and your flagrant rule violation when you are around, I've decided to drop a note at AN/I. I'm still hopeful that we can discuss this issue and make some of the proposals listed above, but because I'm not as free from now until September I feel as though we need some extra third-party attention on the situation. I hope we can get this situation resolved very quickly. -Thibbs (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Common names
 * Obscure aspects that may never get a full article
 * Synonymous terms that are used more in one country than another
 * Synonymous terms generally
 * Plurals
 * The AN/I thread is here. Feel free to add your thoughts to the thread. -Thibbs (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Well Thursday has come and gone and now Friday is almost over. I'm disappointed that you weren't able to find the time to discuss the proposals any further, and now I see that you've been given an indefinite block. As I said at the AN/I, this wasn't what I had requested but I do understand why the community saw fit to apply this remedy. I am still open to your thoughts on R2D exceptions but I can understand if you wish to end our conversation considering that you are no longer welcome to edit. Either way I do intend to make at least the three proposals listed above. I'm sorry that this whole mess ended the way it did. -Thibbs (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to update you one this, I did make the proposal on my own for the three exceptions we'd come up with, but...
 * The spelling exception was determined not to really be an exception since it's already covered under Wikipedia's general rules regarding correct typography.
 * The "fixing" of disambiguation pages was found to actually violate WP:DABREDIR, and
 * Consistent consensus-based terminology was considered to fit within the penumbra of "other reasons to make the change" from the text of the rule.
 * The first two were quickly taken care of, but the third one took a little discussion and basically the end result was that the wording of WP:NOTBROKEN was changed a bit to clarify what is allowed and what isn't. I know this may come as cold comfort to you under your current editing restrictions, but perhaps it will cheer you to know that the problems that befell you will perhaps serve to help future editors better (more clearly) understand why "fixing" redirects is a mistake. Thanks for working with me a little to come up with the proposal. I do wish you had been more invested in a positive outcome here, but anyway that's all behind us now. Take care. -Thibbs (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

HELP Keep a Social Media War off Wikipedia
There appears to be a Social Media War that has been brought here to Wikipedia, and negative info is being left on the Michelle Borth page that is not necessary. You came to me a few years ago, explaining the boundaries of Wikipedia. Well it appears that they are being broken on Michelle's page. Any input, feedback would help. This little war/argument has gone too far especially now that is being brought to other sites like Wikipedia. This particular user is claiming I have no right to remove the negative info about Michelle, regardless of whether it is true or not, until it is discussed. I feel that if me and this user attempted to discuss, it will get very heated, and you seem to really know ur way, I'd appreciate it Taker22 (talk) 10:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Continual redirect problems by User:TJ Spyke. Thank you. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 23:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're about to be blocked indefinitely. If I were you I'd be pleading my case at ANI. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)